Gurugram: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a petition seeking transfer of a 2019 defamation case over alleged bias of the trial judge and imposed a penalty on the 89-year-old petitioner, holding that “unsubstantiated attack” on the conduct of a counsel is “an attack on the majesty of law itself”.
In a detailed 25-page order dated January 30, Justice Sumeet Goel rejected the plea of Dinesh Chand Bansal, who had sought the transfer of the criminal complaint filed against him under Section 500 IPC (criminal defamation) from the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Panchkula, to another court within the same district.
Justice Goel observed that transfer applications have increasingly been used as a weapon to undermine judicial independence, with litigants often misinterpreting adverse orders as indications of bias.
“If this could be the foundation in transfer of a case, it will well-nigh (almost) yield anarchy in the adjudicatory process,” Justice Goel wrote, adding that unscrupulous litigants would indulge in court-shopping.
On the growing practice of maligning opposing counsel to secure transfers, the court was particularly scathing.
“Any unsubstantiated attack on the professional conduct of a counsel, particularly involving the court/judicial officers, is, in essence, an attack on the majesty of law itself,” Justice Goel observed.
The judgment elaborated on how the adversarial judicial system depends fundamentally on the competence and integrity of advocates, who serve as essential instruments in the administration of justice.
Also Read: Delayed FIR, missing DVR—CBI probe indicts Patiala cops sluggish probe in Colonel Bath assault case
The case
At the heart of the matter was a criminal complaint filed in a Panchkula court in August 2019 by Tarsem Kumar Ruby, a pharmaceutical businessman who served as District Governor of Rotary International, District 3080, for 2017-18.
Ruby’s criminal complaint in the Panchkula court alleged that Bansal, described as a rival candidate who was dissatisfied with his defeat in the Rotary elections, had been persistently challenging Ruby’s selection through objections, complaints and litigation.
According to the complaint, despite multiple reviews by Rotary International validating Ruby’s nomination, Bansal continued filing civil suits and appeals.
When these were dismissed with adverse observations, his Rotary Club membership was eventually terminated for approaching courts without exhausting internal remedies.
Subsequently, an FIR was registered through another person alleging ballot tampering, in which Ruby was summoned but granted bail the same day by the Uttarakhand High Court.
Ruby’s complaint specifically alleged that Bansal and others then circulated a “misleading and false letter” among Rotary members and WhatsApp groups, claiming Ruby had been taken into custody, creating a damaging impression and causing him distress.
The complaint contended that the “deliberate circulation of defamatory material” caused irreparable damage to Ruby’s reputation within the Rotary International and wider society.
Bansal’s transfer application, filed in February 2025, made several serious allegations.
It claimed the presiding magistrate was “in connivance with the complainant” and fixing matters twice a week to harass the 89-year-old accused who lived 250 km away in Dehradun.
The application alleged the complainant was “publicly claiming” he had paid a high amount to the magistrate through his counsel and that the verdict would come in his favour.
It further claimed Bansal learned through a past District Governor that the complainant had approached the presiding officer who “assured to convict” both accused persons.
The Sessions Judge, Panchkula, had dismissed this transfer application in August 2025, observing that the case pertained to 2019 and was among those under the action plan 2024-25.
The judge noted it appeared the accused were trying to delay proceedings on one pretext or another, and that merely expressing apprehension of injustice was insufficient ground for transfer.
While dismissing Bansal’s petition, the Punjab and Haryana High Court discussed the legal principles governing transfer applications under Section 408 of the Criminal Procedure Code (now Section 448 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023).
Citing multiple Supreme Court precedents, the judge emphasised that while assurance of a fair trial is paramount and constitutes part of the fundamental right under Article 21, the power of transfer should be exercised cautiously and only in exceptional circumstances.
Coming to the current petition, the High Court found that Bansal had failed to place any cogent material on record establishing the likelihood of any bias or prejudice.
“The allegations raised by the petitioner are general in nature and do not inspire confidence so as to warrant transfer of the proceedings,” the order stated.
Noting that while the complaint has been pending since 2019, delay alone is not sufficient justification for transfer, particularly when it cannot be attributed solely to the complainant or trial court.
Justice Geol termed the petitioner’s attempt to cast aspersions on the trial judge and opposing counsel as deserving to be “deprecated and responded with abhorrence.”
However, considering Bansal’s old age and the absence of any prior antecedents in raising such scandalous issues, Justice Goel showed a measured restraint by not imposing any exemplary costs on him.
The High Court held that the penalty of Rs 50,000 imposed on Bansal is to be divided equally—Rs 25,000 to be deposited with Haryana State Legal Services Authority, Panchkula, and Rs 25,000 to be paid to Ruby’s counsel.
The Court directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panchkula that in case Bansal failed to deposit the penalty within two weeks, he must inform the Deputy Commissioner, Panchkula, who shall recover the amount as arrears of land revenue.
The court clarified that its observations would not affect the merits of the pending defamation case and directed the trial court to proceed expeditiously in accordance with the law.
(Edited by Ajeet Tiwari)