Mukhtar Ansari’s Custody: Supreme Court Orders Transfer to Uttar Pradesh

The Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling, directed the transfer of custody of Mukhtar Ansari, a sitting MLA from Mau, Uttar Pradesh, from Roopnagar Jail in Punjab to District Jail, Banda, Uttar Pradesh. The judgment, delivered on March 26, 2021, arose from a writ petition filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh seeking the transfer of pending criminal trials and custody of Ansari, citing delays and obstruction of justice.

Background of the Case

Mukhtar Ansari, a well-known political figure, has a long history of criminal cases against him in Uttar Pradesh. The State of Uttar Pradesh filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution and Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) seeking his transfer from Punjab, where he had been lodged since 2019 due to a case registered in Mohali. The petition cited multiple production warrants issued by Uttar Pradesh courts that were repeatedly denied on medical grounds.

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/supreme-court-upholds-conviction-in-karnataka-murder-case-under-ipc-section-302/

Petitioner’s Arguments (State of Uttar Pradesh)

• The 3rd respondent (Mukhtar Ansari) has over ten serious criminal cases pending in Uttar Pradesh, including charges of murder, extortion, and violations of the Gangsters Act.
• Despite court orders, the Punjab authorities refused to transfer him, citing minor health conditions like diabetes and hypertension.
• The delay in his trial was due to Ansari’s continued incarceration in Punjab, preventing his production before courts in Uttar Pradesh.
• Video conferencing appearances were not sufficient for conducting fair trials in serious criminal cases.
• The Punjab authorities were allegedly colluding with the respondent to ensure his continued detention outside Uttar Pradesh.

Respondent’s Arguments (Mukhtar Ansari & Punjab Jail Authorities)

• The petition under Article 32 and Section 406 CrPC was not maintainable since it sought transfer at the investigation stage.
• Mukhtar Ansari’s health issues required continued medical supervision, and his transfer to Uttar Pradesh would endanger his well-being.
• The allegations of delaying trials were baseless as he had been attending court proceedings through video conferencing.
• The State of Uttar Pradesh was engaging in political vendetta, given Ansari’s opposition to the ruling party.
• Punjab jail authorities acted within the law in refusing his transfer due to medical conditions.

Supreme Court’s Observations and Key Findings

The Supreme Court examined the matter in detail, making the following key observations:

• Power of Transfer under Section 406 CrPC: The Court held that while Section 406 allows transfer of trials, it does not apply at the investigation stage. However, the State of Uttar Pradesh, as the prosecuting agency, was an “interested party” and could seek the transfer.
• Role of Medical Reports: The Court found that the Punjab jail authorities repeatedly cited minor ailments like diabetes and hypertension to avoid handing over custody. The reports did not indicate any life-threatening conditions that would prevent transfer.
• Manipulation of the Legal System: The Court observed that Ansari had been successfully avoiding transfer by taking advantage of legal loopholes, resulting in delays in multiple cases pending against him in Uttar Pradesh.
• Need for Expedited Trial: Since the cases against Ansari were at various trial stages, his continued detention in Punjab obstructed the criminal justice system.
• Invocation of Article 142: The Court invoked its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure that justice was served by directing Ansari’s transfer.

Supreme Court’s Verdict

The Court ruled:

“A convict or an undertrial who disobeys the law of the land cannot oppose his transfer from one prison to another. Courts are not to be helpless bystanders when the rule of law is being challenged with impunity.”

Accordingly, the Court issued the following orders:

• Mukhtar Ansari was to be transferred from Roopnagar Jail, Punjab, to District Jail, Banda, Uttar Pradesh within two weeks.
• The Punjab authorities were directed to facilitate the transfer without further delay.
• The Uttar Pradesh Jail authorities were instructed to provide necessary medical care to Ansari as per jail regulations.
• The trial courts in Uttar Pradesh were ordered to expedite the pending cases against him.

Legal Implications of the Judgment

• Strengthening State Prosecution: The ruling reaffirmed the State’s authority in ensuring that criminal trials proceed without obstruction.
• Restrictions on Misuse of Medical Grounds: The judgment prevented accused individuals from exploiting minor health conditions to delay legal proceedings.
• Expansion of Article 142’s Scope: The case demonstrated how the Supreme Court can intervene beyond statutory provisions to ensure justice is served.
• Impact on Politically Influential Accused: The decision set a precedent that even politically powerful individuals cannot evade the legal system through procedural delays.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Jail Superintendent (Ropar) & Others reaffirmed the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the rule of law. It highlighted how legal mechanisms should not be manipulated to delay justice. By ordering Mukhtar Ansari’s transfer, the Court ensured that legal proceedings would move forward in an impartial and timely manner, setting a significant precedent for similar cases in the future.

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/joint-liability-in-criminal-law-supreme-court-clarifies-section-34-ipc/

Petitioner Name: State of Uttar Pradesh.
Respondent Name: Jail Superintendent (Ropar) & Others.
Judgment By: Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice R. Subhash Reddy.
Place Of Incident: Uttar Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 26-03-2021.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: state-of-uttar-prade-vs-jail-superintendent-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-26-03-2021.pdf