Supreme Court: The present case dealt with the power of Supreme Court to transfer cases. It involved transfer of 11 cases with 234 accused, who were charged with committing various offences during disturbances that led to police firing. The five-Judge Bench of B.K. Mukherjea, CJ., and Vivian Bose*, B. Jagannadhadas, T.L. Venkatarama Ayyar, and B.P. Sinha, JJ., considered the seriousness of the situation, and stated that the interests of justice require that such an enquiry must be completely free from any doubt or suspicion. It observed that neither the accused nor any impartial outsider would feel confident in proceedings conducted in an atmosphere filled with strong prejudice.
The Court clarified that it was not alleging any bias on the part of the authorities. However, it emphasised that justice requires that no one, including the accused, should have any reasonable fear that the trial may be affected by such prejudice. Therefore, the Court directed that the cases be transferred to competent Magistrates in Bangalore, as decided by the Mysore High Court.
In the present case, the accused in these 11 cases were being proceeded against for a series of offences said to have been committed by them at various stages of certain disturbances which resulted in police firing.
The Court noted from the affidavits that the situation in the area was tense and emotions were running high due to political reasons. The accused belonged to the Travancore Tamil Nadu Congress(TTNC) party, which aimed to merge the Tamil-speaking areas of the State with Madras. The disturbances were a result of this movement. The State Government, led by Malayalees, opposed the division of the State. Although the Government may have tried to remain neutral, it was clear from the affidavits that there was strong and serious tension between the local Malayalee and Tamil communities.
The Court also noted that there was a proposal to transfer the cases to Tinnevelly in the neighbouring State of Madras, which is about 25—40 miles from the current places of inquiry. It was further suggested that the inquiries should be conducted by Magistrates who are neither Tamilians nor Malayalees. However, the Advocate General of Travancore-Cochin stated that Tinnevelly is a Tamil-majority area where public sentiment could be strongly biased against the State, making a fair trial difficult. He raised the same objection to holding the trials in Coimbatore and Madura, even though they are located farther away.
The Court stated that if a State Government, which is expected to be neutral, can doubt the fairness of a trial in another State conducted by a Magistrate who belongs to neither community, simply because it is in a Tamil area, then the accused persons are justified in fearing that they would not get a fair trial in a Malayalee area where the disturbances took place. The Court also said that, apart from the accused persons’ fears, any independent observer would find it difficult to trust a fair local trial given the State’s own attitude. The Court relied on this reasoning and concluded that such an environment is not calm or impartial enough for deciding serious charges.
The Court stated that it carefully considered the issues of inconvenience and expense, but felt that in a matter of such seriousness, the interests of justice require that the enquiry must be completely free from any suspicion or doubt. It observed that neither the accused nor any impartial outsider would feel confident about proceedings held in an atmosphere filled with strong prejudice. The Court made it clear that it was not suggesting any bias on the part of the authorities. However, it emphasised that justice demands that no one, including the accused, should have any reasonable fear that the trial might be influenced by such prejudice.
The Court therefore directed that the cases be transferred to Magistrate or Magistrates in Bangalore who are competent to conduct the enquiries, as decided by the Mysore High Court. It also allowed the State of Mysore to appoint Special Magistrate or Magistrates for this purpose.
[S.T. Moses v. State of Travancore-Cochin, (1955) 1 SCC 53, decided on 27-1-1955]
Read More on NRJ Series: NRJ Series | Different parts of admission inseparably connected to form integral whole must be accepted or rejected as a whole
NRJ Series| Evidence of related eyewitness can be accepted without corroboration
*Judgment authored by- Justice Vivian Bose
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioners: Taikad Subramania Iyer, Senior Advocate (R. Ganapathy Iyer, Advocate)
For the Respondents: Mathew P. Muricken, Advocate General of Travancore-Cochin (T.R. Bala Krishnan and Sardar Bahadur, Advocates)
**Note- Power of Supreme Court to transfer cases
Section 406 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 provides for power of Supreme Court to transfer cases and appeals. As per the provision, the Supreme Court may direct that any particular case or appeal be transferred from one High Court to another High Court, or from a criminal court subordinate to one High Court to another criminal court of equal or superior jurisdiction subordinate to another High Court, whenever it is expedient for the ends of justice.
This provision has been replaced by Section 446 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which substantially retains the same principle and continues to empower the Supreme Court to transfer cases in order to secure the ends of justice and maintain public confidence in the fairness of the judicial process.
In Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, (2004) 4 SCC 158, it was held that:
“It is one of the salutary principles of the administration of justice that justice should not only be done but it should be seen to be done. However, a mere allegation that there is apprehension that justice will not be done in a given case or that there are general allegations of a surcharged atmosphere against a particular community alone does not suffice. The court has to see whether the apprehension is reasonable or not. The state of mind of the person who entertains the apprehension no doubt is a relevant factor but not the only determinative or concluding factor. But the court must be fully satisfied about the existence of such conditions which would render inevitably impossible the holding of a fair and impartial trial, uninfluenced by extraneous considerations that may ultimately undermine the confidence of a reasonable and right-thinking citizen, in the justice-delivery system. The apprehension must appear to the court to be a reasonable one.”