Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court disposed of a transfer petition filed by petitioners seeking to move a criminal case from Haryana to Delhi. The case arose from the 2016 Jat agitation in Haryana, where members of the Jat community vandalized properties and committed arson, allegedly causing damage to the petitioners. The petitioners, including Sunil Saini, filed Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 125 of 2019 against the State of Haryana and others, alleging that an influential advocate and community pressure led to hostile witnesses and unfair prosecution. They cited rejection of an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to summon the advocate and his son, which was upheld by the High Court. The petitioners argued for transfer due to breakdown of law and order, pervasive influence, and lack of fair prosecution, also requesting appointment of an independent Special Prosecutor and witness protection. The State opposed, noting the recent appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor with experience and the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018. The Court, comprising Justices K.M. Joseph and B.V. Nagarathna, heard arguments on January 30, 2023. In its analysis, the Court emphasized the State's fundamental duty to protect citizens' lives and properties as part of the rule of law, a basic structure of the Constitution. It highlighted the paramount role of the Public Prosecutor in ensuring fair and fearless prosecution. Considering that 42 witnesses had been examined and time had passed, the Court found transfer unwarranted. However, it directed that petitioners could approach the Director of Prosecution if the Special Public Prosecutor failed in duties, and seek witness protection through appropriate authorities. The Court disposed of the petition with these directions, ensuring observations would not prejudice the trial court's decision based on evidence and law.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Transfer of Cases - Supreme Court's Power to Transfer - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Petitioners sought transfer of case from Haryana to Delhi citing influence of accused community, hostile witnesses, and unfair prosecution - Court declined transfer noting passage of time and examination of 42 witnesses, but emphasized State's duty to protect citizens and ensure fair trial - Held that transfer not warranted at this stage but petitioners can approach Director of Prosecution if concerns persist (Paras 12-18). B) Criminal Law - Role of Public Prosecutor - Fair and Fearless Prosecution - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Petitioners alleged prosecuting team not acting fairly, sought appointment of independent Special Prosecutor - Court noted recent appointment of Special Public Prosecutor with credentials, declined to replace him but emphasized Prosecutor's duty to act fairly and fearlessly - Held that petitioners can approach Director of Prosecution if Prosecutor fails in duties, ensuring access to justice (Paras 9, 15-18). C) Constitutional Law - State's Fundamental Duty - Protection of Citizens - Constitution of India - Court emphasized State's implied consent basis and fundamental duty to protect lives and properties of citizens as elementary function - Rule of law treated as part of basic structure, State must ensure criminal courts function to punish guilty and exonerate innocent - Observations made regarding State's indispensable function in upholding rule of law (Paras 13-16). D) Criminal Procedure - Witness Protection - Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 - Petitioners alleged witnesses under threats, protection not accorded - Court noted Witness Protection Scheme 2018 provides mechanism for intimidated witnesses to approach presiding Judge, Public Prosecutor, or Superintendent of Police - Held that petitioners can move appropriate authorities for protection as per law (Paras 10-11, 18).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the criminal case arising from the 2016 Jat agitation in Haryana should be transferred to another state due to alleged influence, hostile witnesses, and unfair prosecution
Final Decision
The Supreme Court disposed of the transfer petition, declining to transfer the case due to passage of time and examination of 42 witnesses. Directed that petitioners can approach Director of Prosecution if Special Public Prosecutor fails in duties, and seek witness protection through presiding Judge, Public Prosecutor, or Superintendent of Police as per Witness Protection Scheme 2018. Observations shall not prejudice trial court's decision.
Law Points
- Transfer of criminal cases under inherent powers
- role and duties of Public Prosecutor
- witness protection under Witness Protection Scheme 2018
- State's fundamental duty to protect lives and properties of citizens
- rule of law as part of basic structure of Constitution
- fair trial principles
