Prayagraj: In a significant judgment aimed at protecting the integrity of the subordinate judiciary, the Allahabad High Court has imposed an exemplary cost of ₹1 lakh on two litigants for making "reckless" and "baseless" allegations against a Trial Judge. The Court took strong exception to the claim that a judicial officer had issued a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) under the "persuasion" of an advocate who happened to be the complainant's brother.

The Single Judge Bench of Justice Samit Gopal observed that such allegations, made without a shred of evidence, not only malign the reputation of individual judges but also attempt to "browbeat" the judicial institution.

The matter arose from a transfer application filed by two individuals, Shyam Sundar and Om Prakash (the applicants). They approached the High Court seeking the transfer of a criminal complaint pending before the Court of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) / Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in Jhansi.

The underlying criminal case involved serious allegations under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Section 387 (extortion), Section 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), Section 504 (intentional insult), and Section 506 (criminal intimidation).

In their transfer plea, the applicants made a sensational claim: they alleged that the complainant’s real brother, who is a practicing advocate in the Jhansi District Court, had met the Presiding Officer (the Trial Judge) in his private chamber. They explicitly pleaded that "on his persuasion," the Trial Court had issued a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) against them in November last year.

When the matter came up for hearing, Justice Samit Gopal scrutinized the affidavit filed by the applicants. The Court noted that the applicants had sworn the affidavit based on a "perusal of records." However, upon examining the actual judicial records, the High Court found absolutely nothing to substantiate the claim that any such meeting took place or that the judge was influenced.

The Court remarked:

"The records do not substantiate any such allegation. Thus the allegations are totally reckless and without any basis. There is nothing in the judicial order to suggest it was passed based on the persuasion of the opposite party's brother."

The Court further noted that the State Counsel had rightly argued that the content of the affidavit was nearly contemptuous. The High Court emphasized that litigants cannot be allowed to cast aspersions on the character and integrity of judicial officers simply because an order was passed against them.

A deeper look into the case revealed that the applicants were not new to the High Court. Previously, a Co-ordinate Bench of the Allahabad High Court had already declined to quash the criminal proceedings against them. At that time, the Court had granted them the liberty to file a 'discharge application' (a request to be cleared of charges before the trial begins) within a specific timeframe.

However, instead of following that legal route, the applicants chose to file a transfer petition based on allegations against the judge. The Court viewed this as a clear "dilatory tactic"—a move intended to delay the trial and frustrate the legal process.

"The applicants have not chosen to file their discharge application till date," the Bench observed, noting that the trial was stalled because of these unnecessary applications.

While the Court was stern with the litigants, it also expressed strong displeasure regarding the administrative side of the Trial Court. Upon perusing the impugned order (the order being challenged), Justice Gopal found that it was a five-line order where almost nothing was readable except the date and the acronym 'NBW'.

The High Court noted that despite repeated circulars and directions from both the Judicial and Administrative sides of the High Court, some trial courts continue to pass orders in a handwriting that is completely illegible.

"The trial court in this matter appears to be totally ignorant about the same and has signed the said order without even looking into it," the Court said. Consequently, the High Court directed the District & Sessions Judge, Jhansi, to ensure that the Trial Court passes legible orders in the future and to submit a report on this within two weeks.

To send a clear message that the judiciary cannot be intimidated or insulted by baseless claims, the High Court dismissed the transfer petition and imposed a cost of ₹1,00,000 (One Lakh Rupees) on the applicants.

The Court warned that if the amount is not deposited within the stipulated time, the Trial Court shall direct the District Magistrate to recover the sum as "land revenue" (a process used for government debt recovery).

This ruling by the Allahabad High Court serves as a vital precedent for several reasons:

Protection of Judicial Officers: Trial judges often work under immense pressure. Baseless allegations of "private meetings" or "influence" can damage their careers and morale. The High Court has shown that it will stand as a shield for the subordinate judiciary.
Curbing Frivolous Litigation: By imposing a heavy fine of ₹1 lakh, the Court has signaled that "court-shopping" or "judge-shopping" through transfer pleas will not be tolerated.
Accountability for Legibility: The Court's comments on the illegibility of orders highlight a practical problem in the Indian legal system where unreadable judicial handwriting often leads to confusion and further litigation.

The case of Shyam Sundar and another vs. State of UP (2026) stands as a reminder to litigants and advocates alike: the right to approach a higher court is not a license to attack the integrity of the lower courts. Legal battles must be fought on the merits of the law and the facts of the case, not through "reckless" personal attacks on the presiding officers.

For now, the litigants in Jhansi face a steep price for their "persuasion" claim, while the Trial Court has been put on notice to ensure its orders are, at the very least, readable.

Case Details:

Case Title: Shyam Sundar and another vs. State of UP [2026 LiveLaw (AB) 64]
Bench: Justice Samit Gopal
Court: Allahabad High Court