Sudhir Agarwal, J.— 1. Heard Sri G.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record. 2. In paras 9, 10 and 11 of the affidavit serious allegations have been made by applicant against District Judge, Varanasi in order to support this transfer application but the interesting fact is that factual averments in entirety, made in paras 9 and 10 of the affidavit, have been sworn on the basis of legal advise. This is manifestly fallacious. It demonstrates the falsity in the allegations. 3. In my view, therefore, no interference is called for. 4. Apparently, this is an application filed for maligning the reputation of a senior Judicial officer without substantiating allegations at all. Therefore, it is not only mischievous, but is likely to set a bad precedent. 5. In the matters where reckless false allegations are attempted to be made to seek some favourable order, either in a transfer application, or otherwise, the approach of Court must be strict and cautious to find out whether the allegations are bona fide, and, if treated to be true on their face, in the entirety of circumstances, can be believed to be correct, by any person of ordinary prudence in those circumstances. If the allegations are apparently false, strict approach is the call of the day so as to maintain not only discipline in the courts of law but also to protect judicial officers and maintain their self esteem, confidence and above all the majesty of institution of justice. 6. Taking a serious view in such matters, in Writ Petition No. 40414 of 2011, Sanjay Kumar Vs. The Collector Bijnor and others, decided on 21.07.2011 this Court in paras 4, 5 and 6 of judgment said as under: "4. In my view no interference is called for. This is a petition filed for maligning the reputation of Presiding Officer of the Court without substantiating any allegation at all and, therefore, not only mischievous but is likely to set a bad precedent. Merely because one of the party to case is an Advocate, that would not mean that he can have such an influence or relation with judicial officer that other party would not get justice. It is a normal practice that outside the Court, Presiding Officers and Advocates, who are also officers of the Court, constitute single lot and many a times in functions meet each other. It is a normal practice that outside the Court, Presiding Officers and Advocates, who are also officers of the Court, constitute single lot and many a times in functions meet each other. Similarly, if an Advocate comes to meet the Presiding Officer or a Judge in his Chamber or at residence, normal curtsey some time extended by a Judge by itself cannot be said to reflect upon the judicial integrity of a Judge. 5. In my view, this writ petition is gross abuse of process of law and is an attempt to malign the reputation of a Presiding Officer without substantiating the allegations hence such kinds of writ petition should be dealt with seriously. The writ petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs. 6. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with costs quantified to Rs. 50,000/-." 7. The justice delivery system knows no caste, religion, creed, colour etc. It is a system following principle of black and white, i.e., truth and false. Whatever is unfair, that is identified and given its due treatment and whatever is good is retained. Whoever suffers injustice is attempted to be given justice and that is called dispensation of justice. The prevailing system of dispensation of justice in Country, presently, has different tiers. At the ground level, the Courts are commonly known as "Subordinate Judiciary" and they form basis of administration of justice. Sometimes it is said that subordinate judiciary forms very backbone of administration of justice. Though there are various other kinds of adjudicatory forums, like, Nyaya Panchayats, Village Courts and then various kinds of Tribunals etc. but firstly they are not considered to be the regular Courts for adjudication of disputes, and, secondly the kind and degree of faith, people have, in regular established Courts, is yet to be developed in other forums. In common parlance, the regular Courts, known for appropriate adjudication of disputes basically constitute subordinate judiciary, namely, the District Court; the High Courts and the Apex Court. 8. The hierarchy gives appellate and supervisory powers in various ways. The administrative control of subordinate judiciary has been conferred upon High Court, which is the highest Court at provincial level and is under constitutional obligation to see effective functioning of subordinate Courts by virtue of power conferred by Article 235 read with 227 of the Constitution. 8. The hierarchy gives appellate and supervisory powers in various ways. The administrative control of subordinate judiciary has been conferred upon High Court, which is the highest Court at provincial level and is under constitutional obligation to see effective functioning of subordinate Courts by virtue of power conferred by Article 235 read with 227 of the Constitution. No such similar power like Article 235, in respect to High Court is exercisable by Apex Court, though it is the highest Court of land. Its judgments are binding on all. Every order and judgment of any Court or Tribunal etc., in the Country, is subject to judicial review by Apex Court. This is the power on judicial side. 9. In Ajay Kumar Pandey, Advocate, In Re:, (1998) 7 SCC 248 , the Court said that superior Courts, i.e. High Court as also the Apex Court is bound to protect the Judges of subordinate Courts from being subjected to scurrilous and indecent attacks, which scandalise or have the tendency to scandalise, or lower or have the tendency to lower the authority of any court as also all such actions which interfere or tend to interfere with the due course of any judicial proceedings or obstruct or tend to obstruct the administration of justice in any other manner. No affront to the majesty of law can be permitted. The fountain of justice cannot be allowed to be polluted by disgruntled litigants. The protection is necessary for the courts to enable them to discharge their judicial functions without fear. 10. If there is a deliberate attempt to scandalize a judicial Officer of subordinate Court, it is bound to shake confidence of the litigating public in the system and has to be tackled strictly. The damage is caused not only to the reputation of the concerned Judge, but, also to the fair name of judiciary. Veiled threats, abrasive behaviour, use of disrespectful language, and, at times, blatant condemnatory attacks, like the present one, are often designedly employed with a view to tame a Judge into submission to secure a desired order. The foundation of our system is based on the independence and impartiality of the men having responsibility to impart justice i.e. Judicial Officers. If their confidence, impartiality and reputation is shaken, it is bound to affect the very independence of judiciary. The foundation of our system is based on the independence and impartiality of the men having responsibility to impart justice i.e. Judicial Officers. If their confidence, impartiality and reputation is shaken, it is bound to affect the very independence of judiciary. Any person, if allowed to make disparaging and derogatory remarks against a Judicial Officer, with impunity, is bound to result in breaking down the majesty of justice. 11. I cannot ignore the fact that much cherished judicial independence needs protection not only from over zealous executive or power hungry legislature but also from those who constitute, and, are integral part of the system. Here is a case where an Advocate has drafted a petition since the litigants, namely petitioners, hereat does not appear to understand the legal complexity much. The Advocate forgetting the higher status conferred upon him, making him an Officer of the Court, has chosen to malign Judicial Officer of the Subordinate Court, based on caste consideration as also the nature of his appointment over which he himself has no control. In any case, that, by itself, has no connection with his performance and function as Presiding Officer of the Court. 12. An Advocate's duty is as important as that of a Judge. He has a large responsibility towards society. He is expected to act with utmost sincerity and respect. In all professional functions, an Advocate should be diligent and his conduct should also be diligent. He should conform to the requirements of law. He plays a vital role in preservation of society and justice system. He is under an obligation to uphold the rule of law. He must ensure that the public justice system is enabled to function at its full potential. He, who practices law, is not merely a lawyer, but acts as moral agent. This character, he cannot shake off, by any other character on any professional character. He derives from the belief that he shares sentiment of all mankind. This influence of his morality is one of his possession, which, like all his possession, he is bound to use for moral ends. Members of the Bar, like Judges, are the officers of the Court. Advocacy is a respectable noble profession on the principles. An Advocate owes duty not only to his client, but to the Court, to the society and, not the least, to his profession. 13. Members of the Bar, like Judges, are the officers of the Court. Advocacy is a respectable noble profession on the principles. An Advocate owes duty not only to his client, but to the Court, to the society and, not the least, to his profession. 13. I do not intend to lay down any code of conduct for the class of the peoples known as "Advocates", but certainly I have no hesitation in observing that no Advocate has nay business to condemn a Judge merely on the basis of his caste, creed or religion or for any other similar trait or attribute. If there is something lacking on the part of a Judicial Officer touching his integrity, Advocates, being Officers of the Court, may not remain a silent spectator, but should come forward, raising their voice in appropriate manner before the proper authority, but there cannot be a licence to any member of Bar to raise his finger over the competency and integrity etc. of a Judicial Officer casually or negligently or on other irrelevant grounds. Here the competence and capacity of the concerned Judicial Officer has been attempted to be maligned commenting upon his integrity and honesty. It deserves to be condemned in the strongest words. No one can justify it in any manner. Thinking of intrusion of such thought itself sounds alert. It is a siren of something which is not only very serious, but imminent. A concept or an idea which should not have cropped up in anybody's mind, connected with the system of justice, if has cropped up, deserves to be nipped at earliest, else, it may spreads its tentacles to cover others and that would be a dooms day for the very institution. 14. This Court also made similar observations in Writ Petition No. 57760 of 2012, Smt. Munni Devi and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, decided on 03.12.2012 and in para 10, said: "10. Be that as it may, so far as the present case is concerned, suffice is to mention that the Constitution makers have imposed constitutional obligation upon the High Court to exercise control over subordinate judiciary. This control is both ways. No aberration shall be allowed to enter the Subordinate Judiciary so that its purity is maintained. Be that as it may, so far as the present case is concerned, suffice is to mention that the Constitution makers have imposed constitutional obligation upon the High Court to exercise control over subordinate judiciary. This control is both ways. No aberration shall be allowed to enter the Subordinate Judiciary so that its purity is maintained. Simultaneously Subordinate Judiciary can not be allowed to be attacked or threatened to work under outside pressure of anyone, whether individual or a group, so as to form a threat to objective and independent functioning of Subordinate Judiciary." 15. In my view, this application amounts to gross abuse of process of law and is an attempt to malign the reputation of a Judicial Officer without substantiating the allegations. Such kind of application needs be dealt with strictly and seriously. 16. The application, therefore, deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs. 17. It is accordingly dismissed with costs quantified to Rs. 50,000/-. _____________