Petitioner Allege Bias by Special Judge in SC/ST Atrocities Case; Chhatisgarh High Court Dismiss Plea for Case Transfer

Bilaspur- The Chhattisgarh High Court at Bilaspur, delivered a powerful judgment on July 14, upholding the sanctity of judicial independence while dismissing a petition seeking transfer of a sensitive SC/ST Atrocities Act case from the Special Judge's court in Raipur.

In a strongly-worded verdict, Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha declared that "the justice delivery system knows no caste, religion, creed, or colour - it follows the principle of black and white, truth and false," setting the tone for a judgment that would firmly reject unsubstantiated allegations against a presiding judicial officer.

The case stems from Criminal Special Atrocities Case No. 46/2023 (State vs. Dileshwar Sahu & Others), where a woman advocate from the Scheduled Caste community had accused fellow advocate Parmeshwar Sahu of sexual assault under false promise of marriage, along with allegations of coercion by his family members.

While the initial charge sheet named only Dileshwar Sahu, the petitioner Advocate Chandrashekhar Agrawal was later implicated through a supplementary charge sheet in June 2025, following which he sought transfer of the case alleging bias by the Special Judge.

The High Court systematically dismantled the petitioner's arguments, beginning with its observation that "mere suspicion by a party that he will not get justice would not justify transfer. There must be a reasonable apprehension substantiated by circumstances." The bench emphasized that "a judicial order made by a Judge legitimately cannot be made the foundation for transfer," noting the complete absence of concrete evidence to support the allegations of bias. In what would become a central theme of the judgment, the court robustly defended judicial independence, stating that "the foundation of our system is based on the independence and impartiality of judicial officers. If their confidence is shaken, it affects the very independence of judiciary."

Addressing the petitioner's specific grievance about the victim's refusal to testify until all accused were charge-sheeted, the court clarified that "when the victim expressed unwillingness to testify until all accused were charge-sheeted, it was a procedural necessity - not proof of bias." This observation highlighted the court's sensitivity to the survivor's rights while simultaneously protecting the judicial process from unfounded allegations.

The judgment extensively referenced legal precedents, including the landmark Maneka Sanjay Gandhi vs. Rani Jethmalani (1979) case, to reinforce that "assurance of a fair trial is the first imperative... Transfer cannot be granted for 'mini grievances' like hypersensitivity or convenience. There must be something substantial imperiling public justice."

In a particularly significant passage, the court underscored the critical role of district judiciary, stating that "the prevailing justice system's strength lies in district courts. If their officers are demoralized by baseless allegations, the entire edifice collapses." This observation formed part of the court's broader philosophical statement about the nature of justice delivery: "The system identifies unfairness and retains what is good. Whoever suffers injustice must get justice - that is dispensation of justice."

The judgment concluded with a firm dismissal of the transfer petition, finding no merit in the allegations against the Special Judge and upholding the legality of the supplementary charge sheet against Agrawal. In doing so, the High Court sent a clear message about the importance of protecting judicial officers from unfounded allegations while ensuring that the justice system remains focused on its fundamental purpose of distinguishing truth from falsehood without regard to extraneous considerations.