Decrying the practice of "forum shopping" adopted by litigants to obtain favourable orders, the Supreme Court in a recent judgment has held that a judge should not hear a matter decided by another judge of the same court unless the latter has demitted, superannuated or transferred.
This rule, as a principle, said the Court principle if not adhered to had enormous possibility of forum-shopping which has no sanction in law and definitely, has no sanctity. Further, it was essential to sustain the faith of the people in the judiciary and instilling judicial discipline. The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and Uday U lalit said, "Unscrupulous litigants are not to be allowed even to remotely entertain the idea that they can engage in forum-shopping, a deprecable conduct in the field of law."
The Court commented on this disturbing trend while dealing with an appeal by an accused in a cheating case. The accused, Jagmohan Behl and an associate, had first moved the Saket district court in Delhi for anticipatory bail that got rejected. A month later, he approached another judge in the same court who granted him bail. This occurred despite the judge who passed the earlier order was still available in the same court.
Decrying such a trend, the bench observed, "If the same (forum shopping) is allowed to prevail, it is likely to usher in anarchy, whim and caprice and in the ultimate eventuate, shake the faith in the adjudicating system." The bench laid down that a matter must ideally be put to the same judge who heard it provided he is still available in that court. It will be the duty of the prosecution to place this fact before the judge concerned. Moreover, this will augur well with the "principle of judicial decorum, discipline and propriety", said Justice Mishra, writing the judgment for the bench.
The Court, however, granted bail to Bahl, saying the allegations in the FIR relate to execution of an agreement.