Transfer of Criminal Trials: Supreme Court Denies Request for Transfer from Uttarakhand

The case of Umesh Kumar Sharma v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. involves a petition filed under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, seeking the transfer of three criminal cases from Dehradun to competent courts in Delhi or another state. The petitioner, a journalist, alleged that he was facing malicious prosecution due to his investigative work against the ruling political leadership in Uttarakhand.

Background of the Case

The petitioner, Umesh Kumar Sharma, filed a transfer petition citing threats to his life and the likelihood of biased trials in Dehradun courts. He alleged that his investigative journalism activities, particularly sting operations against high-ranking officials, had led to targeted prosecutions.

According to the petitioner, apart from the three cases in question, several other false cases had been foisted against him. He argued that justice would not be served if the trials were conducted in Uttarakhand, as the State administration was allegedly influencing legal proceedings against him.

Legal Issues Raised

• Whether the petitioner’s apprehension of biased trials in Uttarakhand courts was reasonable.
• Whether the transfer of cases would prejudice the prosecution, witnesses, and judicial administration in the state.
• Whether criminal trials should be transferred solely based on the accused’s perception of bias.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner, represented by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, submitted the following key arguments:

• He was being maliciously prosecuted due to his work as an investigative journalist exposing corruption in the Uttarakhand government.
• Due to his journalism, he faced personal threats and harassment by the State authorities.
• The State was deliberately prolonging cases against him to intimidate and silence him.
• His right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution would be violated if the trials remained in Dehradun.
• The courts in Delhi or another neutral location would ensure a fair and impartial trial.

Respondent’s Arguments

The State of Uttarakhand, represented by Advocate Ruchira Gupta, opposed the transfer petitions on the following grounds:

• The petitioner failed to demonstrate any actual prejudice against him.
• The investigation in all three cases was complete, and charge sheets had already been filed.
• Most witnesses in these cases were from Uttarakhand, making it irrational to transfer trials elsewhere.
• Transfer of cases would reflect poorly on the credibility of Uttarakhand’s judiciary.
• The petitioner had filed multiple Public Interest Litigations (PILs) in the Uttarakhand High Court in 2020, which contradicted his claim that he feared unfair treatment in the State’s courts.

Observations of the Supreme Court

1. No Sufficient Grounds for Transfer

The Supreme Court noted that the transfer of criminal trials is an exceptional measure and should only be granted in rare cases where there is clear evidence of bias or prejudice. The Court observed:

“The petitioner has failed to demonstrate how the trials in Dehradun would be unfair or prejudiced against him. Mere apprehensions without substantive proof cannot be grounds for transfer.”

2. Role of Investigative Journalism

The petitioner claimed that he was being prosecuted for his journalistic activities, including sting operations targeting the State’s leadership. However, the Court pointed out that some of the cases against him involved allegations of property grabbing and extortion, which had no direct link to his journalism. It stated:

“While investigative journalism is essential for democracy, it cannot be a shield against criminal prosecution when the allegations concern personal gains rather than journalistic integrity.”

3. Fair Trial Concerns Addressed

The Court reiterated that Indian judicial institutions are capable of conducting fair trials. It cited the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Rani Jethmalani (1979), which held that transfer of trials should only occur when the fairness of the legal process is seriously imperiled. The Court stated:

“The fairness of a trial is judged by actual evidence of bias, not by the personal sensitivities of the accused.”

4. Practical Difficulties of Transfer

The Supreme Court recognized that transferring trials outside Uttarakhand would inconvenience a large number of witnesses, most of whom were local residents. It observed:

“The convenience of all stakeholders, including the witnesses and prosecution, must be considered. Shifting trials to Delhi or another state would lead to logistical difficulties and unnecessary delays.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the transfer petitions, ruling that:

• The petitioner failed to establish any real danger of bias in Uttarakhand courts.
• The allegations against him included matters unrelated to journalism.
• The State had not acted unfairly, as some cases against him had already been closed.
• Transferring cases would cause logistical challenges for witnesses and delay proceedings.

The Court, however, noted that if any threats or undue influence were proven during trial, the petitioner could approach the High Court or Supreme Court for further relief.

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court reaffirmed that criminal trials should not be transferred based on mere apprehensions but only when there is tangible evidence of bias or unfair proceedings.
• Journalistic work does not provide blanket immunity against criminal prosecution.
• The petitioner had failed to show that Uttarakhand’s courts were incapable of conducting fair and impartial trials.
• Witness convenience and judicial efficiency play a crucial role in deciding transfer petitions.
• The petitioner retains the right to seek protective measures if new evidence of unfair treatment arises in the future.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case clarifies that transfer of criminal trials is a rare remedy granted only in cases of compelling evidence of bias. The judgment upholds the principle that fair trials are the norm in Indian courts and that judicial institutions can handle cases impartially, regardless of external perceptions.

Petitioner Name: Umesh Kumar Sharma.
Respondent Name: State of Uttarakhand & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Hrishikesh Roy.
Place Of Incident: Dehradun, Uttarakhand.
Judgment Date: 16-10-2020.

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

Download Judgment: Umesh Kumar Sharma vs State of Uttarakhand Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 16-10-2020.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Legal Malpractice
See all petitions in Contempt Of Court cases
See all petitions in Judgment by Hrishikesh Roy
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments October 2020
See all petitions in 2020 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category