SC: Disastrous to shift trial just because a politician is involved

The Supreme Court on Friday said it would be “disastrous” to transfer a trial outside a state merely because a political leader is involved because such a move could cast doubt on the independence of the entire judiciary within that state.

“It will lead to a disastrous effect if we start shifting trials just because a political personality is involved. It would mean that not a single judicial officer in that state is independent. How can that be?” a bench of justices Abhay S Oka and AG Masih asked.

The bench was hearing a petition by Congress MLA Rajendra Bharti, seeking the transfer of a cheating case trial against him outside Madhya Pradesh. According to Bharti, former state home minister and BJP leader Narottam Mishra was trying to influence the trial by colluding with the district public prosecutor (DPO) and the additional district public prosecutor (ADPO).

Senior counsel Kapil Sibal, appearing for Bharti, argued that when prosecuting officers are seen sitting with the former minister, his client could not expect a free and fair trial in the state.

But the bench differed. “Indirectly, you are saying that there is no independent judicial officer available in the state who can decide the case. You cannot impute or insinuate the entire judiciary is influenced...Political leaders are being prosecuted in every state,” it told Sibal.

The court clarified that it was not inclined to shift the trial outside the state of Madhya Pradesh based on Sibal’s contentions.

At this, Sibal said that he was even agreeable to transferring the trial to a different court where the two prosecutors are not there. After Sibal named the two prosecutors, the bench said that Bharti would have to make them as parties since there were allegations being levelled against them.

“We cannot pass any order behind their back since you are making allegations against them. You implead them as parties...We are issuing notices to them,” said the bench, adding it would prefer sending the matter back to the high court if Bharti was going to confine his plea to sending the matter to a different court in the state. To be sure, while a high court can issue an order shifting a trial to a different court in the same state, it is only the Supreme Court that has the constitutional power to shift a trial outside a state.

The allegations against Bharti, an MLA from Datia in Madhya Pradesh, stem from a deposit he made in his mother’s name at the district cooperative rural bank. Initially, the deposit, offering an interest rate of 13.50%, was for three years but was later extended to 15 years. A bank manager filed a complaint accusing Bharti of cheating, prompting a court to register a case of fraud. The case was subsequently transferred from Datia to an MP-MLA court in Gwalior.

Bharti, in his defence, has said that the case was filed under political pressure and that the relevant circulars permitted extending the term of the fixed deposit. He further expressed concern that if the decision were to be made in Gwalior or elsewhere in Madhya Pradesh, Mishra might exert undue influence on the outcome of the case.

HT reached out to BJP leader Narottam Mishra, but he declined to comment on the matter.