On Tuesday, the Supreme Court cautioned against readily attributing institutional bias to judicial proceedings based solely on the official positions held by relatives of a litigant. Setting aside an ex parte transfer order passed by the Telangana High Court, the Court held that allegations of bias cannot rest on the mere fact that a party’s relative is employed as a police constable or court staff. The Division Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice K. Vinod Chandran draws a firm boundary around the exercise of transfer jurisdiction, particularly where such orders disrupt ongoing criminal proceedings initiated by a woman complainant and are passed without affording her an opportunity of hearing.
The case arose from a criminal case instituted on the complaint of the wife, which was pending before the Court of the Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class. On an application moved by the husband, the Telangana High Court ordered the transfer of the proceedings to the Metropolitan Magistrate. The transfer order was passed ex parte, despite the wife being impleaded as a respondent in the transfer petition.
The transfer was sought on the ground of alleged bias, premised on assertions that the wife’s relatives were influencing the police and court staff. It was claimed that one relative was serving as a Head Constable in the local police station, while another was employed in the District Court establishment. The wife challenged the transfer before the Apex Court, contending that the High Court failed to account for her personal circumstances and accepted unsubstantiated allegations of bias.
The wife argued that the transfer order ignored the hardship faced by a woman with two children who would be compelled to prosecute criminal proceedings far from her hometown. She further submitted that the allegation of bias was founded solely on the employment status of her relatives, one of whom had already been transferred out of the relevant court establishment.
The husband, on the other hand, maintained that the presence of the wife’s relatives in the police station and District Court created a reasonable apprehension of prejudice. He also raised concerns regarding his personal safety if required to attend proceedings.
The Apex Court found fault with the High Court’s approach, particularly noting that the wife had not been heard before passing the transfer order. Confined strictly to the question of transfer, the Bench rejected the premise that bias could be inferred on the grounds urged by the husband.
The Court observed that “Primarily, it cannot be said that merely because the relative of the wife is a Head Constable and another is working in the District Court, there would be a bias against the husband, especially when the adjudication is carried out by the Judge.”
The Court further stated that “We cannot lightly find a bias on the Judge merely because the relative of a party is a Head Constable working in a Police Station coming within the jurisdiction of the Court and/or another relative is working in the District Court itself.” The Bench also took note of the fact that one of the relatives relied upon to allege bias had already been transferred from the concerned court establishment, rendering the apprehension even weaker.
The Court observed that appropriate procedural safeguards were available, including exemption from personal appearance, representation through counsel or video conferencing, and applications for police protection, which the Magistrate could consider favourably.
Allowing the appeal, the Court held that the grounds raised for transfer were inconsequential and that the High Court’s order could not be sustained. The Court directed that the criminal case be transferred back to the Court of the Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sangareddy. It further ordered that if the case had been closed by the transferee court on any ground, including default of appearance, it must be restored and retransferred without fail.
Case Title: Prasanna Kasini v. The State of Telangana & Anr.
Case No.: SLP (Crl.) No. 7038 of 2025
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Advocate for the Appellant: Adv. Kumar Shashank, AOR Nivesh Kumar, Adv. Krishna Swami Yadav, Adv. Nitish Rai, Adv. Rakesh Kumar.
Advocate for the Respondent: Adv. Kumar Vaibhaw, AOR Devina Sehgal, Adv. Srikanth Varma Mudunuru, Adv. Yatharth Kansal, AOR Rakeesh N.P., Adv. Dr. Shine P. Sasidhar, Adv. Sumanth G. Read Judgment@ Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
