ORDER : 1. Dr. Singhvi on behalf of the appellant state that it was most improper on the part of the appellant to have made an allegation of bias in his review petition against retired Judge of this court and that the appellant unconditionally expresses his regret for the same and withdraws pages 12A and I2B from the written submissions filed by him. We want to condemn unequivocally and unreservedly any attempt on the part of a litigant or a member of the public to impute directly or indirectly any bias or prejudice to a sitting or retired Judge whether of this court or of a High Court. Such imputations have the effect of denigrating the judicial institution and shaking the confidence of the people in the administration of justice, apart from doing incalculable harm to the reputation of the Judge. It is vital to the maintenance of the democratic way of life that no such imputation of bias or prejudice should ever be made by any litigant or a member of the public, if we really want to sustain a regime of rule of law with a strong and independent judiciary. We are making these observations because we find that of late there is a growing tendency to attribute bias, prejudice or improper motive to a judge if he delivers judgment which is not to the liking of the person concerned. This, we are afraid, constitutes a grave threat to the independence of the judiciary and must be roundly condemned. Whilst making these observations, we may point out that Dr. Singhvi was not the counsel who argued the review petition on behalf of the appellant and he was not in any way responsible for the allegations of bias made in the review petition.