Prayagraj (UP), May 3 (PTI) The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a transfer petition due to a lack of evidence to support the allegations levelled against a presiding officer.

The court has also imposed a cost of Rs 5,000 on the petitioner, observing that litigants are increasingly turning aggressive towards the judiciary because of the reluctance of judges to use their contempt-of-court powers.

Also Read | Pahalgam Terror Attack: Pakistani Media and Their Proxy Social Media Handles Have Launched Disinformation Campaign, Warns Indian Army.

Passing the order, Justice J J Munir further observed that while courts hesitate to invoke contempt powers out of respect for the citizens' fundamental right to freedom of speech, this liberal approach cannot be misused to make scandalous allegations against judges.

"It is unfortunate that in contemporary times, litigants have turned aggressive because for one reason or the other, the courts are eschewing invocation of their power of criminal contempt. The restraint or the hesitation comes from honouring the citizens' fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression and their right to ventilate their grievances. This does not mean that any kind of scandalous allegations without basis can be hurled at the court," the judge said.

Also Read | Karnataka SSLC Exam 2 and 3 2025 Datesheet Released at kseab.karnataka.gov.in: KSEAB Releases Timetable for SSLC Exam 2 and 3, Check Full Schedule Here.

The case involved a plea challenging the Board of Revenue's refusal to transfer an application under the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 from the additional commissioner (judicial) 3rd, Bareilly to another court.

The petitioner had alleged bias and connivance between the presiding officer and the respondent, citing delays and long adjournments as evidence.

During the course of hearing, the high court found these claims to be "utterly scandalous" and unsupported by evidence.

"A wrong order or a wrong procedure does not lead to an inference of bias. Likewise, mere delay on the part of the presiding officer in hearing the revision is no ground to infer bias," the court said in its order dated April 25.

It stressed that accusations of judicial connivance demand a high standard of responsibility and evidence.

(This is an unedited and auto-generated story from Syndicated News feed, LatestLY Staff may not have modified or edited the content body)