The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that a litigant cannot pick his judge. The assertion came as the bench flagged a growing practice among parties to routinely question the integrity and cast aspersions on the judicial officer after receiving an “unfavourable order”.Describing it as “totally uncalled for”, Justice Rupinderjit Chahal observed such allegations were of a routine nature and often raised only to lay a basis for seeking a case’s transfer from one court to another. The bench added that litigants’ attempt to choose particular courts for adjudication of their disputes could certainly not be left to the discretion of litigants.Justice Chahal was hearing a petition seeking a murder case’s transfer from one court to another. The bench was told that the petitioners along with co-accused — allegedly armed with weapons, including guns and revolver — fired upon the complainant party, causing injuries to them and a person’s death.The bench was told that an FIR in the matter was registered for murder and other offences in May 2017 under Sections 302, 336, 506, 148, 149 of the IPC and the provisions of the Arms Act at the Kulgarhi police station in Ferozepur district.The matter was placed before Justice Chahal after the petitioners sought the quashing of the impugned order dated October 27.10.2025, passed by Ferozepur Sessions judge, vide which their application for transfer of the case to some other court was dismissed. Their counsel contends that the trial court erred in dismissing the application filed by the petitioners for the FIR’s transfer.Justice Chahal observed the reasons given by the petitioners, on the basis of which they were allegedly doubting the fairness of the presiding officer, mainly touched the judicial functioning of the officer. “A recent trend has been noticed that whenever an order is passed by a judicial officer/presiding officer, which is unfavourable to a particular party, the said party starts blaming the presiding officer and doubting his integrity, which is totally uncalled for,” the bench observed.The court added the other allegations levelled were of routine type put forward by a litigant to form the basis for transfer of his case from a particular court to some other court. “The litigants want to choose some particular courts for adjudication of their disputes and it cannot certainly be left to discretion of litigants to do so,” Justice Chahal observed.The court added the district judge, also the administrative head of the judiciary at the district level, was in best position to know about the integrity and functioning of the officers working under his control.“No doubt request of a litigant to transfer his case from a particular court can be considered, if prima facie it is shown that the presiding officer is favourably inclined towards the opposite party on account of close acquaintance, friendship, relations etc. and not as a result of levelling such vague and sweeping allegations. “Whenever a case is transferred from a particular court to some other court on an application moved by a litigant levelling allegations against the presiding officer that does have demoralising effect upon the presiding officer. Therefore, such type of applications cannot be allowed in a casual and cursory manner,” Justice Chahal added, while dismissing the petition.