Distant relationship of Judge with with other party does not lead to presumption of bias

Lalu Prasad v. State of Jharkhand, (2013) 8 SCC 593
Constitution of India
Arts. 136 and 139-A - Transfer on ground of alleged bias, when not tenable - Fodder Scam case - Special Judge
intimating the parties in midst of arguments and compelling them to file written arguments on or before 1-7-2013 and also
intimating them that judgment would be pronounced on 15-7-2013 - Special Judge evidently doing this because High
Court was monitoring case and by order dt. 17-6-2013, High Court had directed Special Judge to expeditiously proceed
in the matter - Appellant-accused alleging that his political rivals in power were distant relatives of Special Judge - But
appellant-accused not alleging this fact at the beginning of trial but alleging same at final stage on eve of pronouncement
of judgment i.e. after evidence had been recorded and arguments had been concluded before the same Special Judge
against whom bias was alleged - In any case, said distant relationship of Special Judge with persons concerned did not
lead to presumption of bias
- Prayer for transferring case at this late stage thus, held, cannot be allowed - Yet, trial Judge
directed to eliminate apprehension of appellant-accused arising from abovesaid intimation - As arguments were still to be
advanced, a further time of 5 days for prosecution and 15 days for all the accused including appellant herein, granted -
Special Judge, held, must pronounce judgment at the earliest without being influenced by observations made by superior
courts, 
Natural Justice
Bias/Nemo debet esse judex in propria sua causa
Distant relationship of Judge with persons part of current Government in power drawn from political opponents of
accused, held, does not lead to presumption of bias, 
Art. 21 - Speedy trial - Extent to which trial may be expedited - Time-limit for completing arguments - Manner in which to
be directed - Trial court intimating parties in the midst of arguments and compelling them to file written arguments on or
before a specified date and that judgment would be pronounced on specified date, held, unwarranted - However,
considering factors like pendency of trial for about 16 yrs, that it was an important case and that High Court had also
directed speedy disposal, said conduct of trial court, held, cannot be faulted - However, further time of 20 days in total
provided to accused and prosecution to complete their arguments, (2013) 8 SCC 593-C

Administration of justice - Duty and responsibility of Judges, and lawyers, (2013) 8 SCC 593-D

Print Page