Judicial Bias, Recusal, and Forum Shopping: Legal Standards and Recent Judicial Responses 

Posted On - 5 December, 2025 • By - Aurelia Menezes

Introduction

Allegations of judicial bias strike at the heart of the justice delivery system. While courts must remain sensitive to legitimate concerns about impartiality, they must also guard against frivolous or speculative claims that undermine the integrity of the judiciary. Increasingly, Indian courts have had to balance these competing concerns as parties attempt to seek transfers or recusals based on subjective impressions, perceived discourtesy, or strategic forum shopping. 

Recent rulings including the Delhi High Court’s order in Neeti Sharma v. Kailash Chand Gupta (2025) reaffirm the high threshold for establishing a “reasonable apprehension of bias,” and demonstrate a growing judicial intolerance towards unfounded allegations made to delay proceedings. 

1. Constitutional and Ethical Foundations

Judicial independence is part of the basic structure of the Constitution. Consequently: 

  • Litigants are entitled to an impartial tribunal (Articles 14 and 21). 
  • Judges are bound by the Restatement of Values of Judicial Life (1997), which requires them to avoid conduct that gives rise to even a “reasonable perception” of partiality. 
  • However, allegations of prejudice cannot be lightly made. The judiciary presumes impartiality unless the contrary is demonstrated with credible, objective material. 

2. The “Reasonable Apprehension of Bias” Standard

Indian jurisprudence has repeatedly clarified that bias must be real, not imaginary. Leading precedents include: 

  • State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar (2011):  The Supreme Court held that mere suspicion, vague apprehension, or emotional distrust cannot justify transfer or recusal. Allegations must be supported by cogent, reliable evidence. 
  • Locabail (UK) Ltd v. Bayfield Properties Ltd (UK Court of Appeal, often cited by Indian courts): Personal impressions, tone, or judicial firmness do not establish bias unless linked to a clear conflict of interest or prejudgment. 
  • Kumar Padma Prasad v. Union of India (1992): Bias must be established on objective tests; the presumption is always in favour of judicial integrity. 

Courts consistently differentiate between: 

  • Actual bias (rare, requires evidence) 
  • Reasonable apprehension of bias (must be based on an objective standard) 
  • Frivolous or strategic allegations (subject to costs and disciplinary consequences) 

3. Forum Shopping and Abuse of the Transfer Mechanism

The judiciary has repeatedly condemned the trend of using transfer petitions as a litigation strategy. In Chetak Construction Ltd. v. Om Prakash (1998), the Supreme Court warned that litigants cannot “choose their judge” and that courts must firmly deter forum shopping. 

Similarly, in Karan v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2021), the Delhi High Court observed that unverified allegations made to secure favourable benches threaten judicial credibility and must be dealt with strictly. 

4. The Role of Evidence: Affidavits and Record Proceedings

Courts have emphasised that allegations of bias must be supported by evidence, such as: 

  • sworn affidavits from persons present, 
  • record of proceedings, 
  • demonstrable procedural irregularities. 

Subjective impressions (“the judge was friendly,” “the judge did not accept my application”) do not meet the standard. 

Case Illustration: Neeti Sharma v. Kailash Chand Gupta (Delhi High Court, 2025)

The Neeti Sharma ruling is a contemporary example of the judiciary applying the above principles with clarity and firmness. 

Background:

The petitioners sought transfer of their rent recovery suit, alleging that the civil judge: 

  • spoke to the opposing counsel in an overly friendly tone, 
  • rejected their application under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC, 
  • allowed leniency towards the defendants. 

They had earlier filed and withdrawn a similar transfer petition. 

Court’s Findings:

Justice Saurabh Banerjee dismissed the petition as: “a figment of imagination and a baseless narrative.” 

Key conclusions included: 

a. No Material Evidence of Bias: The petitioners produced no affidavits, no record-based inconsistencies, and no objective facts demonstrating prejudice. 

b. Mere Politeness or Procedural Decisions ≠ Bias: The Court reiterated that civility between the bench and bar cannot be construed as partiality. 

c. Abuse of Process and Forum Shopping: The repeated filing of speculative petitions was held to be an attempt to derail proceedings. 

d. Imposition of Costs: To deter misuse, the Court imposed ₹50,000 in costs, payable to the Lawyers’ Social Security and Welfare Fund. 

e. Warning Against Continuing Attacks on the Judiciary: Any further defamatory allegations would invite contempt proceedings. 

Broader Analysis: Judicial Protection, Procedural Discipline & Deterrence

Courts Are Drawing a Stronger Line Against Frivolous Allegations 

Recent jurisprudence reflects a shift toward zero tolerance for allegations that: 

  • lack evidentiary support, 
  • are aimed at delaying the trial, 
  • attempt to engineer a favourable forum. 
  • This trend protects both judicial integrity and court efficiency. 

Dissatisfaction with: 

  • dismissal of applications, 
  • strict case management, 
  • perceived rudeness or tone, 
    do not constitute legal grounds for transfer. Courts have reiterated this in multiple rulings including Ravi Yashwantrao Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra (2020). 

Costs Are Increasingly Used as a Corrective Tool 

Imposition of costs, earlier rare is now a regular judicial response to discourage misuse of the recusal or transfer mechanism. This reflects a system-wide effort to: 

  • improve litigation discipline, 
  • protect trial judges from baseless accusations, 
  • maintain decorum in the dispute-resolution process. 

Maintaining Public Confidence in Judicial Impartiality 

By scrutinising allegations rigorously and penalising unsupported claims, courts reinforce the principle that judges are presumed impartial unless proven otherwise. This strengthens public trust in the system. 

Conclusion

The legal framework governing judicial bias and recusal is well-settled: bias must be proven, not presumed. The Delhi High Court’s order in Neeti Sharma v. Kailash Chand Gupta exemplifies the judiciary’s commitment to safeguarding its dignity against speculative, tactical allegations. For legal practitioners, the message is clear: 

  • transfer petitions must be founded on concrete material, not subjective impressions; 
  • repeated or frivolous allegations may invite adverse costs or contempt; 
  • courts will not permit forum shopping disguised as apprehension of bias. 

As workloads rise and trial courts manage increasingly complex matters, maintaining respect for judicial processes and exercising restraint in alleging misconduct remains central to the integrity and efficacy of the justice system.