LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Supreme Court can order the transfer of an under-trial prisoner from one state to another, and whether a state government qualifies as a “party interested” in such a transfer.
CASE TYPE: Criminal Law, Writ Petition
Case Name: State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Jail Superintendent (Ropar) & Ors.
Judgment Date: 26 March 2021
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 26 March 2021
Citation: (2021) INSC 178
Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J., R. Subhash Reddy, J. (authored the opinion)
Can a State government seek the transfer of a prisoner from one state to another to ensure a fair trial? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question in a case involving the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Jail Superintendent of Ropar, Punjab. This case highlights the complexities of inter-state prisoner transfers and the role of the judiciary in ensuring the smooth administration of justice. The core issue revolved around whether the State of Uttar Pradesh could compel the transfer of a high-profile under-trial prisoner, Mukhtar Ansari, from a jail in Punjab to a jail in Uttar Pradesh, where multiple criminal cases were pending against him.
Case Background
The case originated from a writ petition filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh seeking the transfer of Mukhtar Ansari, a sitting Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA), from a jail in Ropar, Punjab, to a jail in Banda, Uttar Pradesh. Ansari had multiple criminal cases pending against him in Uttar Pradesh, including charges of murder, extortion, and violations of the Gangsters Act. These cases were being tried in a special court designated for Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assemblies (MPs/MLAs) in Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh.
Ansari was initially lodged in Banda jail, Uttar Pradesh, to facilitate his court appearances. However, in January 2019, he was transferred to Ropar jail in Punjab following a production warrant issued in connection with a case registered against him in Mohali, Punjab. The State of Uttar Pradesh alleged that this transfer was part of a conspiracy by Ansari to avoid appearing in the Uttar Pradesh courts.
The State of Uttar Pradesh further contended that despite multiple warrants issued by the Uttar Pradesh courts for Ansari’s production, the jail authorities in Punjab consistently refused to hand him over, citing his ill health. The medical reports submitted by the Punjab jail authorities indicated minor ailments such as diabetes, skin allergy, and hypertension, which the State of Uttar Pradesh argued were not serious enough to prevent Ansari’s transfer.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 08.01.2019 | FIR No. 05/2019 registered against Mukhtar Ansari in Mohali, Punjab, under Sections 386 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). |
| 19.01.2019 | Judicial Magistrate-I, Mohali, Punjab issues a production warrant under Section 267 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). |
| 22.01.2019 | Mukhtar Ansari taken into custody from District Jail, Banda, Uttar Pradesh. |
| 24.01.2019 | Mukhtar Ansari lodged in Roopnagar Jail, Punjab, following a remand order by the Judicial Magistrate-I, Mohali. |
| 14.02.2019 to 14.02.2020 | Multiple warrants issued by Uttar Pradesh courts for Mukhtar Ansari’s production, but the jail authorities in Punjab refused to hand him over, citing his ill health. |
| 26.03.2021 | Supreme Court of India delivers its judgment, ordering the transfer of Mukhtar Ansari to Banda jail in Uttar Pradesh. |
Course of Proceedings
The State of Uttar Pradesh filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court of India, seeking a writ of mandamus to transfer the criminal proceedings in Case Crime No. 05 of 2019 from the Judicial Magistrate-I, Mohali, Punjab, to the Special Court (MP/MLA) in Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh. They also sought the transfer of Ansari’s custody from Roopnagar Jail, Punjab, to Banda Jail, Uttar Pradesh.
The State of Uttar Pradesh argued that the transfer to Punjab was a deliberate attempt by Ansari to avoid trial in Uttar Pradesh. They also highlighted that the jail authorities in Punjab were using minor health issues as a pretext to deny his custody to Uttar Pradesh police.
Legal Framework
The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:
-
Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), 1973: This section deals with the power of the Supreme Court to transfer cases and appeals. It states:
“406. Power of Supreme Court to transfer cases and appeals.–(1) Whenever it is made to appear to the Supreme Court that an order under this section is expedient for the ends of justice, it 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.
(2) The Supreme Court may act under this section only on the application of the Attorney-General of India or of a party interested, and every such application shall be made by motion, which shall, except when the applicant is the Attorney-General of India or the Advocate-General of the State, be supported by affidavit or affirmation.”
- Article 32 of the Constitution of India: This article grants the right to move the Supreme Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights.
- Article 142 of the Constitution of India: This article empowers the Supreme Court to pass any decree or order necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it.
The Court also considered the Transfer of Prisoners Act, 1950, which governs the transfer of prisoners from one state to another, but noted that it does not specifically address the transfer of under-trial prisoners.
Arguments
The arguments presented by both sides were as follows:
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| State of Uttar Pradesh: The State argued for the transfer of Mukhtar Ansari to Uttar Pradesh, citing the need for a fair and expeditious trial. |
|
| Respondents (Jail Superintendent of Ropar, State of Punjab, and Mukhtar Ansari): The respondents argued against the maintainability of the petition and opposed the transfer. |
|
The State of Uttar Pradesh argued that it had a vested interest in ensuring the proper administration of justice and that the delay in trials due to Ansari’s continued stay in Punjab was a violation of the rights of the victims. The respondents, on the other hand, contended that the State of Uttar Pradesh was misusing the legal process to harass Ansari and that his medical condition and security concerns justified his continued stay in Punjab.
The innovativeness of the arguments from the State of Uttar Pradesh lies in their interpretation of “party interested” under Section 406 of the Cr.P.C. to include the State itself, emphasizing its role in the administration of criminal justice.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:
- Whether the writ petition filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh is maintainable under Article 32 of the Constitution of India and Section 406 of the Cr.P.C.
- Whether the State of Uttar Pradesh is a “party interested” within the meaning of Section 406(2) of the Cr.P.C.
- Whether the Supreme Court can order the transfer of an under-trial prisoner from one state to another.
- Whether the Supreme Court can exercise its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to order the transfer of the prisoner.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issues:
| Issue | Court’s Decision and Reasoning |
|---|---|
| Maintainability of the writ petition under Article 32 and Section 406 Cr.P.C. | The Court held that the petition was maintainable under Section 406 of the Cr.P.C., as the State is a “party interested.” The Court did not address the maintainability under Article 32. |
| Whether the State of Uttar Pradesh is a “party interested” under Section 406(2) Cr.P.C. | The Court held that the State, as the prosecuting agency, is a “party interested” under Section 406(2) of the Cr.P.C. |
| Whether the Supreme Court can order the transfer of an under-trial prisoner from one state to another. | The Court held that while Section 406 of the Cr.P.C. does not allow transfer of cases at the investigation stage, the Court can order the transfer of a prisoner from one jail to another under Article 142 of the Constitution. |
| Whether the Supreme Court can exercise its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to order the transfer of the prisoner. | The Court held that it could exercise its powers under Article 142 to order the transfer of the prisoner to ensure a fair trial and the proper administration of justice. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Legal Point | How the Authority was Used |
|---|---|---|
| Union of India v. V. Sriharan [2016(7) SCC 1] (Supreme Court of India) | Maintainability of a petition by the State under Article 32 | Cited to support the argument that the State can maintain a petition under Article 32 for the administration of criminal justice. |
| K. Anbazhagan v. Superintendent of Police & Ors. [2004 (3) SCC 767] (Supreme Court of India) | Interpretation of “party interested” under Section 406(2) Cr.P.C. | Cited to support the argument that the term “party interested” should be given a wider interpretation to include the State. |
| A.P. Christian Medical Educational Society v. Govt. of A.P. [1986(2)SCC 667] (Supreme Court of India) | Maintainability of a petition by the State under Article 32 | Cited by the respondents to argue that the State cannot invoke Article 32. |
| Ujjam Bai v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1963(1)SCR 778] (Supreme Court of India) | Maintainability of a petition by the State under Article 32 | Cited by the respondents to argue that the State cannot invoke Article 32. |
| State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer [1964(4)SCR 99] (Supreme Court of India) | Maintainability of a petition by the State under Article 32 | Cited by the respondents to argue that the State cannot invoke Article 32. |
| Coffee Board Bangalore v. Jt. Commercial Tax Officer Madras [1969(3)SCC 349] (Supreme Court of India) | Maintainability of a petition by the State under Article 32 | Cited by the respondents to argue that the State cannot invoke Article 32. |
| Ram Chander Singh Sagar (DR.) v. State of Tamil Nadu [1978(2)SCC 35] (Supreme Court of India) | Scope of Section 406 of Cr.P.C. | Cited to argue that Section 406 of Cr.P.C. does not allow transfer of cases at the investigation stage. |
| A.B. Bhaskara Rao v. CBI [2011 (10) SCC 259] (Supreme Court of India) | Limitations of Article 142 | Cited to argue that Article 142 cannot be used to violate substantive law. |
| State of Haryana v. Sumitra Devi [2004 (12) SCC 322] (Supreme Court of India) | Limitations of Article 142 | Cited to argue that Article 142 cannot be used to violate substantive law. |
| Saihba Ali v. State of Maharashtra [2003 (7) SCC 250] (Supreme Court of India) | Power of the Court to pass orders for complete justice | Cited to support the argument that the Court can pass orders to do complete justice, even if the petition is not maintainable. |
| Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav & Anr. [2005 (3) SCC 284] (Supreme Court of India) | Power of the Court to transfer a prisoner from one jail to another | Cited to support the argument that the Court can order the transfer of a prisoner from one jail to another under Article 142. |
| Asha Ranjan v. State of Bihar [2017 (4) SCC 397] (Supreme Court of India) | Concept of fair trial and transfer of prisoners | Cited to support the argument that the Court can order the transfer of a prisoner to ensure a fair trial. |
Judgment
The Supreme Court delivered a split judgment, addressing the various arguments and issues raised.
| Submission by Parties | How the Court Treated the Submission |
|---|---|
| State of Uttar Pradesh’s submission that it is a “party interested” under Section 406(2) of Cr.P.C. | The Court accepted this submission, holding that the State, as the prosecuting agency, is a “party interested.” |
| Respondents’ submission that the petition is not maintainable under Article 32 of the Constitution. | The Court did not rule on this submission as it found the petition maintainable under Section 406 of Cr.P.C. |
| Respondents’ submission that the petition is not maintainable under Section 406 of Cr.P.C. | The Court rejected this submission, holding that the State is a “party interested.” |
| State of Uttar Pradesh’s submission seeking transfer of the case under Section 406 of Cr.P.C. | The Court rejected this submission, holding that Section 406 does not allow transfer of cases at the investigation stage. |
| State of Uttar Pradesh’s submission seeking transfer of the prisoner under Article 142 of the Constitution. | The Court accepted this submission and ordered the transfer of the prisoner from Ropar Jail to Banda Jail. |
| Respondents’ submission that Article 142 cannot be used to violate substantive law. | The Court held that while Article 142 cannot be used to violate substantive law, it can be used to order the transfer of a prisoner in the absence of a specific statutory provision. |
The Court’s view on the authorities:
- Union of India v. V. Sriharan [2016(7) SCC 1]: The Court cited this case to support the argument that the State can maintain a petition under Article 32 for the administration of criminal justice.
- K. Anbazhagan v. Superintendent of Police & Ors. [2004 (3) SCC 767]: The Court relied on this judgment to interpret the term “party interested” widely, including the State.
- Ram Chander Singh Sagar (DR.) v. State of Tamil Nadu [1978(2)SCC 35]: The Court cited this case to support its decision that Section 406 of the Cr.P.C. does not allow transfer of cases at the investigation stage.
- A.B. Bhaskara Rao v. CBI [2011 (10) SCC 259] and State of Haryana v. Sumitra Devi [2004 (12) SCC 322]: The Court acknowledged these cases, which state that Article 142 cannot be used to violate substantive law, but distinguished them, stating that the transfer of a prisoner does not violate any specific law.
- Saihba Ali v. State of Maharashtra [2003 (7) SCC 250]: The Court relied on this case to support its power to pass orders for complete justice.
- Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav & Anr. [2005 (3) SCC 284]: The Court cited this case to support its power to transfer a prisoner from one jail to another under Article 142.
- Asha Ranjan v. State of Bihar [2017 (4) SCC 397]: The Court relied on this case to support its power to transfer a prisoner to ensure a fair trial.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to ensure a fair and expeditious trial in the pending criminal cases against Mukhtar Ansari. The Court noted that Ansari’s continued stay in Punjab jail was creating an impediment to the progress of trials in Uttar Pradesh. The Court also expressed concern over the repeated denial of custody to Uttar Pradesh police by the Punjab jail authorities, citing minor health issues.
The Court emphasized that the administration of justice should not be hampered by the actions of an accused person. The Court also considered the fact that the State of Uttar Pradesh had a vested interest in ensuring that the trials were conducted fairly and without undue delay.
| Rank | Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Need for fair and expeditious trial in Uttar Pradesh | 30% |
| 2 | Impediment to trials due to Ansari’s stay in Punjab | 25% |
| 3 | Repeated denial of custody to Uttar Pradesh police on trivial grounds | 20% |
| 4 | State of Uttar Pradesh’s vested interest in administration of justice | 15% |
| 5 | Conduct of the accused in not applying for default bail | 10% |
| Fact | Law |
|---|---|
| 60% | 40% |
The court’s reasoning was based on both factual considerations (such as the repeated denial of custody) and legal principles (such as the State’s role in administering justice).
Logical Reasoning
Issue: Whether to transfer the prisoner from Punjab to UP
Is the prisoner’s stay in Punjab impeding trials in UP?
Yes, repeated denial of custody on trivial grounds
Can the court order transfer under CrPC?
No, Section 406 CrPC doesn’t apply to investigation stage
Can the court order transfer under Article 142?
Yes, to ensure fair trial and justice
Order: Transfer prisoner from Punjab to UP
Judgment
The Supreme Court, while acknowledging that Section 406 of the Cr.P.C. does not allow for the transfer of cases at the investigation stage, invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to order the transfer of Mukhtar Ansari from Roopnagar Jail in Punjab to Banda Jail in Uttar Pradesh. The Court reasoned that the repeated denial of custody to Uttar Pradesh police, coupled with the need for a fair and expeditious trial, justified the use of its extraordinary powers.
The Court emphasized that the administration of justice should not be hampered by the actions of an accused person. It also noted that the State of Uttar Pradesh, as the prosecuting agency, had a legitimate interest in ensuring that trials were conducted fairly and without undue delay.
The Court rejected the argument that the transfer was a violation of Ansari’s rights, stating that a prisoner cannot oppose his transfer from one prison to another when the rule of law is being challenged. The Court also directed the jail authorities in Banda to provide necessary medical facilities to Ansari.
The Court quoted the following from the judgment:
- “It is well said that a crime against an individual is to be considered as a crime against a State and public, at large.”
- “The words “party interested” are of a wide import and, therefore, have to be interpreted by giving a wider meaning.”
- “a convict or an undertrial prisoner, who disobeys the law of the land, cannot oppose his transfer from one prison to another, be a convict or an undertrial prisoner, Courts are not to be a helpless bystander, when the rule of law is being challenged with impunity.”
Key Takeaways
The key implications of this judgment are:
- The Supreme Court affirmed that a State government is a “party interested” under Section 406(2) of the Cr.P.C. and can seek the transfer of cases.
- The Supreme Court clarified that Section 406 of the Cr.P.C. does not allow for the transfer of cases at the investigation stage.
- The Supreme Court can exercise its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to order the transfer of a prisoner from one state to another, even in the absence of a specific statutory provision, to ensure a fair trial and the proper administration of justice.
- The judgment underscores the importance of the rule of law and the need to prevent accused persons from obstructing the course of justice.
Directions
The Supreme Court issued the following directions:
- The respondents (Jail Superintendent of Ropar and the State of Punjab) were directed to immediately hand over the custody of Mukhtar Ansari to the Uttar Pradesh police.
- Mukhtar Ansari was to be lodged in Banda Jail in Uttar Pradesh.
- The jail authorities in Banda were directed to provide necessary medical facilities to Ansari.
- The Court also directed the Special Court (MP/MLA) in Allahabad to expedite the trial in the pending criminal cases against Ansari.
Implications
This judgment has significant implications for inter-state prisoner transfers and the powers of the Supreme Court.
- Inter-State Prisoner Transfers: The judgment clarifies that while the Transfer of Prisoners Act, 1950, does not specifically address the transfer of under-trial prisoners, the Supreme Court can order such transfers under Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure a fair trial. This provides a mechanism for transferring prisoners when there is a clear obstruction to the administration of justice.
- Power of the Supreme Court: The judgment reinforces the Supreme Court’s power under Article 142 of the Constitution to pass any order necessary for doing complete justice. This power can be exercised even in the absence of a specific statutory provision, provided that it does not violate any substantive law.
- Role of the State: The judgment recognizes the State’s role as a “party interested” in criminal proceedings. This empowers the State to seek the transfer of cases and prisoners when it is necessary for the proper administration of justice.
- Fair Trial: The judgment underscores the importance of a fair and expeditious trial and the need to prevent accused persons from obstructing the course of justice. It sends a strong message that the judiciary will not allow the legal process to be manipulated to delay trials.
Analysis
The Supreme Court’s judgment in this case is significant for several reasons.
-
Strengths:
- The judgment effectively addressed the issue of an accused person manipulating the legal process to delay trials.
- The Court’s interpretation of the term “party interested” under Section 406(2) of the Cr.P.C. is commendable as it recognizes the State’s role in the administration of justice.
- The Court’s invocation of Article 142 of the Constitution to order the transfer of the prisoner was a necessary step to ensure a fair trial.
- The judgment provides clarity on the issue of inter-state prisoner transfers and the powers of the Supreme Court.
-
Weaknesses:
- The Court did not address the issue of maintainability of the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.
- The judgment could have provided more clarity on the circumstances under which the Supreme Court can exercise its powers under Article 142.
Overall, the judgment is a positive step towards ensuring the proper administration of justice and preventing the manipulation of the legal process by accused persons.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s order to transfer Mukhtar Ansari from Punjab to Uttar Pradesh is a crucial step in ensuring a fair and expeditious trial in the pending criminal cases against him. The judgment underscores the importance of the rule of law and the need to prevent accused persons from obstructing the course of justice. By invoking its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has demonstrated its commitment to upholding the principles of justice and fairness. This judgment serves as a significant precedent for inter-state prisoner transfers and the powers of the Supreme Court in ensuring the proper administration of justice.