Maneka Sanjay Gandhi and Another vs Rani Jethmalani
• Submitted By:
• Submitted To: Dr.
Ivneet Walia
• Kushagra Shrivastava
• RGNUL, Patiala • Group No. : 4
• Roll No. : 15092
Facts Of The Case
• Mrs. Maneka Gandhi figures as an accused a prosecution
launched against her and others by Miss. Rani Jethmalani for
an offense 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 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.
Section 406 Of Cr.P.C
• 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.
• (3) Where any application for the exercise of the powers conferred by this
section is dismissed, the Supreme Court may, if it is of opinion that the
application was frivolous or vexatious, order the applicant to pay by way of
compensation to any person who has opposed the application such sum not
exceeding one thousand rupees as it may consider appropriate In the
circumstances of the case.
Judgment
• 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 mini-grievances. Something
more substantial, more compelling, more imperiling, 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.
• 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.
Judgment
• 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 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.
• 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.
• The transfer petition was thus canceled.
