http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: MANEKA SANJAY GANDHI AND ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: RANI JETHMALANI

DATE OF JUDGMENT23/11/1978

BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. KAILASAM, P.S. KOSHAL, A.D.

CITATION:  1979 AIR  468            1979 SCR  (2) 378  1979 SCC  (4) 167  CITATOR INFO :  R          1990 SC 113  (9)

ACT:      Petition for  of transfer of Criminal Proceedings under order XXXVI  of Supreme  Court Rules  1966 read with section 406  Criminal  Procedure  Code  1973-Central  criterion  and guidelines to  be followed  by Courts,  when  a  motion  for transfer is made.

HEADNOTE: ^      HELD: 1.  Assurance  of  a  fair  trial  is  the  first imperative of  the dispensation  of justice  and the central criterion  for  the  Court  to  consider  when  motion  four transfer is  made is  not the  hypersensitivity or  relative convenience  of  a  party  or  easy  availability  of  legal services  or   the  like  mini  grievances.  Something  more substantial, more  compelling, more  imperilling,  from  the point  of   view  of   public  justice   and  its  attendant environment is  necessitous, if the Court is to exercise its power of  transfer. This  is the cardinal principle although the circumstances  may be myriad and vary from case to case. courts must  test the  petitioner’s grounds  on this  touch- stone bearing in mind the rule that normally the complainant has the  right to  choose any  Court having jurisdiction and the accused cannot dictate where the case against him should be tried.  Even so, the process of justice should not harass the parties  and from  that angle  the Court  may weigh  the circumstances. [380F-H]      2. The  meat of  the matter, in a case of defamation is something different  than the  common ground  usually  urged like the  avoidance of  substantial prejudice  to a party or witnesses  on   account  of   logistics  or   like  factors, especially when  an alternative  venue  will  not  seriously handicap the  complainant  and  will  mitigate  the  serious difficulties of  the accused.  The main  witnesses are those who speak  to having  read the  offending matter  and  other relevant circumstances flowing therefrom. [381A-B]      In this  case, the  witnesses belong  to Bombay and the suggestion that  Delhi readers  may be  substitute witnesses and the  complainant may consent herself with examining such

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

persons is  too presumptuous for serious consideration. [381 C]      3. The  sophisticated processes  of  a  criminal  trial certainly require  competent  legal  service  to  present  a party’s case.  If an  accused  person,  for  any  particular reason, is virtually deprived of this facility, an essential aid to  fair trial  fails. If  in a  certain Court the whole Bar, for reasons of hostility or otherwise refuses to defend an accused  person-an extraordinary  situation difficult  to imagine, having  regard to  the ethics  of the profession-it may well  be put  forward  as  a  ground  which  merits  the attention of  the Supreme  Court. Glib  allegation like  the services of an efficient advocate may not be easy to procure involves a  reflection on  the members  of the Bar in Bombay and,  therefore,   is  cannot  be  easily  accepted  without incontestible testimony  in that  behalf which  is absent in this case.  apart from  the ipse dixit of the party; Popular frenzy or official wrath shall not deter a member of the Bar from 379 offering his  services to  those who wear unpopular names or unpalatable causes   and  the Indian  advocate may  not fail this standard. [381C-E]      4. It  is true that a detached atmosphere of a fair and impartial judicial  trial is  a must. The tendency of toughs and street  roughs to  violate  the  serenity  of  Court  is obstructive of  the course  of justice  and must  surely  be stamped out.  Likewise, the  safety  of  the  person  of  an accused  or   complainant  is  an  essential  condition  for participation in  a trial  and where that is put in peril by commotion, tumult  or  threat  on  account  of  pathological conditions prevalent  in a particular venue, the request for a  transfer  may  not  be  dismissed  summarily.  It  causes disquiet and  concern to  a Court  of justice  if  a  person seeking justice  is unable  to appear  present  one’s  case, bring one’s  witnesses or adduce evidence. Indeed, it is the duty of  the Court  to assure  propitious  conditions  which conduce to  comparative tranquility  at the trial. Turbulent conditions putting  the accused’s life in danger or creating chaos inside  the Court hall may jettison public justice. If this  vice   is  peculiar  to  a  particular  place  and  is persistent the  transfer of  the case  from that  place  may become   necessary.    Likewise,   if   there   is   general consternation or  atmosphere of  tension or raging masses of people in  the entire region taking sides land polluting the climate,  vitiating  the  necessary  neutrality  to  hold  a detached judicial  trial, the  situation may be said to have deteriorated to  such an extent as to warrant transfer. [381 H, 382A-C]      In the  instant case,  none of  the allegations made by the Petitioner.  read in  the pragmatic light of the counter averments of  the respondent  and  understood  realistically makes  the   contention  credible   that  a  fair  trial  is impossible. [383A-B]      G. X. Francis v. Banke Bihari Singh, A.I.R. 1958 SC 809   and 810; referred to. Observation :      The frequency  of mobbing  manouvres in Court precincts      is  a   bad  omen  for  social  justice  in  its  wider      connotation. Mob  action may  throw out of the gear the      wheels of  the judicial  process. Engineered  fury  may      paralyse a  party’s ability  to  present  his  case  or      participate in  the trial. If the justice system grinds      to a  halt through physical manouvres or sound and fury      of  the  senseless  populace,  the  rule  of  law  runs

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

    aground. Even the most hated human anethema has a right      to be  heard without  the rage  of ruffians  or huff of      toughs being turned against him to unnerve him as party      or witness  or advocate.  Physical violence to a party,      actual or  imminent, is  reprehensible  when  he  seeks      justice before  a tribunal.  Manageable solutions  must      not sweep  the Supreme Court off its feet into granting      an  easy   transfer  but   uncontrollable  or  perilous      deterioration will  surely persuade this Court to shift      the venue. It depends. [383D-F]           Therefore  (a)  the  trial  Court  should  readily      consider the liberal exercise of its power to grant for      the accused  exemption from personal appearance save on      crucial occasions. [383G]           (b) Where  tranquil Court  justice is  a casualty,      the  collapse   of  an   constitutional  order   is  an      inevitability. The Magistrate is the master 380      of the  orderly conduct  of court  proceedings and  his      authority shall  not  hang  limp  if  his  business  is      stalled by  brow-beating. It  is his  duty to clear the      Court of  confusion, yelling and nerve-racking gestures      which mar  the serious  tone of  judicial heaving.  The      officials whose duty is to keep the public peace shall,      on requisition,  be at the command of the Court to help      it run  its process  smoothly. When  the situation gets      out of  hand the  remedy of  transfer  surgery  may  be      prescribed Every  fleeting rumpus  should not lead to a      removal of  the ease  as it  may prove to be a frequent      surrender of justice to commotion. The Magistrate shall      take measures  to enforce  conditions where  the  Court      functions free  and fair  and  agitational  our  muscle      tactics yield no dividends. [384A-C]

JUDGMENT:      CRIMINAL ORIGINAL  JURISDICTION: Transfer  Petition No. 96 of 1978.      Madan Bhatia and D. Gobardhan for the Petitioner.      V.  M.   Tarkunde  and   Mrs.  K.   Hingorani  for  the Respondent.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      KRISHNA IYER,  J.- Mrs.  Maneka Gandhi  figures  as  an accused a  prosecution launched  against her  and others  by Miss. Rani  Jethmalani for  an offence  of defamation in the Court of  the Metropolitan Magistrate, Bombay. The former is the editor  of a  monthly called  "Surya" and is the wife of Shri  Sanjay  Gandhi  and  daughter-in-law  of  Smt.  Indira Gandhi,  former  Prime  Minister.  The  latter  is  a  young advocate and  is the  daughter of  a  leading  advocate  and currently an  important Member  of Parliament.  The  present petition has  been made  for a transfer of the criminal case from Bombay  to Delhi,  and a string of grounds has been set out to  validate the  prayer. We  decline the  transfer  and proceed  to  give  our  reasons  without  making  the  least reflection on the merits of the case.      Assurance of  a fair  trial is  the first imperative of the dispensation  of justice  and the  central criterion for the court  to consider when a motion for transfer is made is not the  hypersensitivity or relative convenience of a party or   easy   availability   of   legal   services   or   like minigrievances. Something more substantial, more compelling, more imperilling,  from the  point of view of public justice and its  attendant environment,  is necessitous if the Court

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

is to  exercise its  power of transfer. This is the cardinal principle although the circumstances may. be myriad and vary from case  to case. We have to test the petitioner’s grounds on this  touch-stone bearing  in mind the rule that normally the complainant  has the  right to  choose any  court having jurisdiction and   the accused cannot dictate where the case against him should be tried. Even so, the process of justice should not  harass the parties and from that angle the court may weigh the circumstances. 381      One of the common circumstances alleged in applications for transfer  is the avoidance of substantial prejudice to a party or  witnesses on account of logistics or like factors, especially when  an alternative  venue  will  not  seriously handicap  the   complaint  and  will  mitigate  the  serious difficulties  of  the  accused.  In  the  present  case  the petitioner claims  that both the parties reside in Delhi and some formal  witnesses belong  to Delhi; but the meat of the matter, in a case of defamation, is something different. The main witnesses  are those  who  speak  to  having  read  the offending matter  and other  relevant circumstances  flowing therefrom. They  belong to  Bombay  in  this  case  and  the suggestion of  the petitioner’s  counsel that  Delhi readers may be  substitute witness  and the  complainant may content herself with  examining such persons is too presumptuous for serious consideration.      Now to  the next ground. The sophisticated processes of a criminal  trial certainly  require competent legal service to present  a party’s  case. If  an accused  person, for any particular reason,  is virtually  deprived of this facility, an essential  aid to fair trial fails. If in a certain court the whole  Bar,  for  reasons  of  hostility  or  otherwise, refuses  to   defend  an  accused  person-an  extra-ordinary situation difficult  to imagine, having regard to the ethics of the  profession-it may  well be  put forward  as a ground which merits  this  Court’s  attention.  Popular  frenzy  or official wrath  shall not  deter a  member of  the Bar  from offering his  services to  those who wear unpopular names or unpalatable causes and the Indian advocate may not fail this standard. Counsel has narrated some equivocal episodes which seem to  suggest that  the services of an efficient advocate may not  be easy  to procure  to defend  Mrs. Maneka Gandhi. Such glib  allegations which  involve a  reflection  on  the members of  the Bar  in Bombay  may not  be easily  accepted without incontestible  testimony in  that behalf, apart from the ipse  dixit of  the party.  That is  absent here.  It is difficult to  believe that  a person of‘ the position of the petitioner who  is the  daughter-in-law of the former Prime. Minister, wife  of a  consequential person  and, in  her own right, an  editor of a popular magazine, is unable to engage a lawyer  to defend her, while, as a fact, she is apparently represented in many legal proceedings quite competently.      A more  serious ground  which disturbs  us in more ways than one  is the alleged absence of congenial atmosphere for a fair  and impartial  trial.  It  is  becoming  a  frequent phenomenon in  our country  that court proceedings are being disturbed by  rude hoodlums  and  unruly  crowds,  jostling, jeering or cheering and disrupting the judicial hearing with menaces, noises  and worse.  This  tendency  of  toughs  and street  roughs   to  violate   the  serenity   of  court  is obstructive of the course of justice 382 and must  surely be stamped out. Likewise, the safety of the person  of   an  accused  or  complainant  is  an  essential condition for participation in a trial and where that is put

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

in peril  by commotion,  tumult  or  threat  on  account  of pathological conditions prevalent in a particular venue, the request for  a transfer  may not  be dismissed summarily. It causes disquiet  and concern  to a  court of  justice  if  a person seeking  justice is  unable to  appear, present one’s case, bring  one’s witnesses  or adduce evidence. Indeed, it is the  duty of  the court  to assure  propitious conditions which conduce  to comparative  tranquillity  at  the  trial. ’Turbulent conditions  putting the  accused’s life in danger or creating  chaos inside the court hall may jettison public justice. If  this vice is peculiar to a particular place and is persistent  the transfer  of the case from that place may become   necessary.    Likewise,   if   there   is   general consternation or  atmosphere of  tension or raging masses of people in  the entire  region taking sides and polluting the climate,  vitiating  the  necessary  neutrality  to  hold  a detached judicial  trial, the  situation may be said to have deteriorated to  such an extent as to warrant transfer. In a decision cited  by the  counsel for the petitioner, Bose, J. Observed:           "....  But  we  do  feel  that  good  grounds  for      transfer from  Jashpurnagar are made out because of the      bitterness of  local communal feeling and the tenseness      of the  atmosphere  there.  Public  confidence  in  the      fairness of a trial held in such an atmosphere would be      seriously  undermined,  particularly  among  reasonable      Christians all  over India  not because  the Judge  was      unfair or  biassed but because the machinery of justice      is not  geared to work in the midst of such conditions.      The calm  detached atmosphere  of a  fair and impartial      judicial trial  would be  wanting, and  even if justice      were done it would not be "seen to be done".(1)      Accepting this  perspective we  must approach the facts of the  pre sent  case without  excitement, exaggeration  or eclipse of  a sense  of pro portion. It may be true that the petitioner attracts a crowd in Bombay. Indeed, it is true of many  controversial   figures  in  public  life  that  their presence  in  a  public  place  gathers  partisans  for  and against,  leading   to  cries  and  catcalls  or  ’Jais’  or ’zindabads’. Nor  is it unnatural that some persons may have acquired, for  a  time  a  certain  quality  of  reputation, sometimes notoriety,  sometimes glory,  which may  make them the cynosure of popular attention when they appear in cities even in  a court. And when unkempt crowds press into a court hall it  is possible  that some  pushing, some nudging, some brash ogling  or angry  starting may  occur in the rough and rumble resulting in ruffled feelings      (1) G.X.  Francis v.  Banke Bihari  Singh, A.I.R.  1958      S.C. 809 at 810. 383 for the victim. This is a far cry from saying that the peace inside the   court  has broken  down, that  calm inside  the court is  beyond restoration, that a tranquil atmosphere for holding  the   trial  is   beyond  accomplishment   or  that operational freedom  for the  Judge parties,  advocates  and witnesses has  ceased to exist. None of the allegations made by the  petitioner, read  in  the  pragmatic  light  of  the counter-averments   of   the   respondent   and   understood realistically, makes  the contention of the counsel credible that a  fair trial  is impossible.  Perhaps, there  was some rough weather but it subsided, and it was a storm in the tea cup  or   transcient  tension   to   exaggerate   which   is unwarranted. The  petitioner’s case  of great  insecurity or molestation to the point of threat to life is, so far as the record bears  out, difficult  to accept. The mere word of an

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6  

interested party  is insufficient to convince us that she is in jeopardy or the court may not be able to conduct the case under conditions  of detachment, neutrality or uninterrupted progress. We  are disinclined  to  stampede  ourselves  into conceding a  transfer of  the case  on this score, as things stand now.      Nevertheless,  we   cannot  view   with  unconcern  the potentiality of  a   flare-up and  the challenge  to a  fair trial, in  the sense  of a satisfactory participation by the accused in the proceedings against her. Mob action may throw out of  gear the  wheels of the judicial process. Engineered fury may  paralyse a  party’s ability to present his case or participate in  the trial. If the justice system grinds to a halt through  physical manoeuvres  or sound  and fury of the senseless populace  the rule of E law runs aground. Even the most hated  human anathema  has a  right to be heard without the rage  of ruffians or huff or toughs being turned against him to unnerve him as party or witness or advocate. Physical violence to  a party,  actual or  imminent, is reprehensible when he seeks justice before a tribual. Manageable solutions must not sweep this Court off its feet into granting an easy transfer but  uncontrollable or  perilous deterioration will surely persuade  us to  shift the  venue.  It  depends.  The frequency of  mobbing manouvres  in court precincts is a bad omen for  social  justice  in  its  wider  connotation.  We, therefore, think  it necessary  to  make  a  few  cautionary observations which will be sufficient, as we see at present, to protect the petitioner and ensure for her a fair trial.      The trial  court should  readily consider  the  liberal exercise of  its power  to grant  for the  accused exemption from personal  appearance save  on crucial  occasions.  Shri Tarkunde, for  the respondent  fairly agreed that it was the right thing  to do  and explained the special reason for its first rejection.  If the  application  is  again  made,  the magistrate will deal with it as we have indicated. This will remove  much  of  the  unsavoury  sensationalism  which  the hearing may suffer from 384      The magistrate  is the master of the orderly conduct of court proceedings  and his  authority shall not hang limp if his business  is stalled  by brow-beating. It is his duty to clear the  court of  confusion,  yelling  and  nerve-racking gestures which mar the serious tone of judicial hearing. The officials whose  duty is  to keep the public peace shall, on requisition, be  at the  command of the court to help it run its process  smoothly. When  the situation  gets out of hand the remedy  of transfer  surgery may  be  prescribed.  Every fleeting rumpus should not lead. to a removal of the case as it may  prove to  be a  frequent  surrender  of  justice  to commotion. The  magistrate shall  take measures  to  enforce conditions where  the  court  function  free  and  fair  and agitational or  muscle tactics  yield no  dividends. If that fails, the  parties have freedom to renew their motion under s. 406  of the  Criminal Procedure Code. For, where tranquil court  justice   is  a   casualty  the   collapse   of   our constitutional order is an inevitability.      We dismiss, for the nonce, this transfer petition. S.R.                                     Petition dismissed. 385