SC rejects plea by journalist to shift trial on sting operation against Uttarakhand CM, family to Delhi

The bench said that a chargesheet has already been filed and the transfer of trials from one state to another would reflect on the credibility of the state’s judiciary

The Supreme Court on Friday said that a trial should be transferred from a court sparingly and only when fair justice is in peril. The apprehension of not getting a level playing field should be based on credible material and not on conjectures and surmises, it added.

The apex court said this while rejecting a plea by a journalist, Umesh Kumar Sharma, to transfer trial in three cases from courts in Uttarakhand to Delhi or elsewhere on the apprehension of "vindictive prosecution" for conducting a sting operation against the current Chief Minister and his family members.

"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 hypersensitive person," a single-judge bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy said.

Sharma of 'Samachar Plus' was, earlier in 2016, reportedly arrested for carrying out a sting operation to bring down Harish Rawat government.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Sharma, contended that on account of his work as an investigative journalist against the ruling dispensation, the petitioner was being targeted for malicious prosecution within the state.

Going through the factual matrix, the court noted out of three cases, two were related to property matters, one of 1995 and another of 2007, when the present ruling dispensation was nowhere in the picture. Another case of 2018 was related to a forcible land grabbing attempt.

"Perhaps only this is relatable to journalistic activity where the allegation of a core member of the investigative journalism team is that the petitioner, in the guise of sting operation (by video recording activities of powerful elements), does not air them and the concerned footages are utilised for extraneous purposes," the court noted.

The bench said that a chargesheet has already been filed in the case and the transfer of trials from one state to another would inevitably reflect on the credibility of the state’s judiciary.

"But for compelling factors and clear situation of deprivation of fair justice, the transfer power should not be invoked. This case is not perceived to be one of those exceptional categories," the bench said.

The complainant, in the 2018 case, had opposed the plea contending the petitioner faced 29 cases and most of which related to property grabbing as he used the cover of journalism to grab property and none of the so-called sting operations has led to the prosecution of anyone in the state.

The state government also submitted the plea by Sharma saying the transfer was made on incorrect and bald allegations. He himself filed five PILs in the HC, showing he was conducting his affairs without impediment.