Transfer plea cannot be entertained on mere apprehension of hyper-sensitive person: Supreme Court dismisses plea by investigative journalist

The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a plea filed by an investigative journalist seeking the transfer of three cases pending against him from Uttarakhand to Delhi for fear of “vindictive prosecution” by the State (Umesh Kumar Sharma vs State of Uttarakhand)..Umesh Kumar Sharma had submitted that as a journalist, he had conducted sting operations against the Chief Minister, his relatives and associates in the State of Uttarakhand, and therefore he was being targeted for malicious prosecution. Moreover, besides the three cases for which transfer was sought, “many false cases are foisted against the petitioner,” it was argued..The State had argued that all the cases for which transfer was sought had reached the conclusion stage as charge sheets were filed and witnesses were examined. It was argued that Sharma was only trying to delay the proceedings and that witnesses were all based in Uttarakhand. Thus, a trial somewhere else was “totally unfounded.”.The Single Judge Bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy noted that there are 28 cases pending against the scribe all over India.Out of those cases, 17 are in Uttarakhand, 4 cases are in Uttar Pradesh, 5 cases are in West Bengal, 2 cases are from Delhi, out of which one is under investigation of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), and another one is pending in Ranchi, Jharkhand.The Court stated that the number of pending cases show that he is not an “ordinary person” and that “State has withdrawn prosecution in many cases filed against the petitioner.”.Justice Roy held that the prosecution cannot be stated to have malicious intent, as most of the cases against the petitioner are not related to his journalistic activities. The judgment reads,."When the nature of the three cases are examined, it is seen that two of the cases are property and Will related matters. One of this case is pending for last over a decade. Therefore, this court finds it difficult to accept that the cases are on account of journalistic activities of the petitioner. In fact the credibility of the journalistic activity of the petitioner is itself questioned, by a member of his sting operation team, in the third case. In such circumstances, the prosecution in the concerned three cases can’t prima facie be said to be on account of malicious prosecution."Supreme Court.The Court further held that in a transfer petition, it is not only the convenience of the petitioner, but all other parties involved which has to be looked at. Thus, it was held,"...it is clear that the petitioner has failed to make out a credible case for transfer of trial to alternative venues outside the State.”Justice Roy elaborated that a transfer plea cannot be on a “mere apprehension of a hyper-sensitive person.” The judgment states,."While assurance of a fair trial needs to be respected, the plea for transfer of case should not be entertained on mere apprehension of a hyper-sensitive person. In his pleadings and arguments, the petitioner in my assessment has failed to demonstrate that because of what he endured in 2018, it is not possible for the courts in the state to dispense justice objectively and without any bias."Supreme Court.Moreover, the Court noted that one of the FIRs sought to be transferred here was registered when the present BJP-led government was not in power in Uttarakhand. "We also notice that one of the FIR that is being sought to be transferred i.e. FIR No.16/2007 was filed long back in 2007, when the present ruling dispensation in the State of Uttarakhand, was nowhere in the picture," reads the judgment..[Read judgment]