Skip to content

Maneka Sanjay Gandhi and Anr. versus Rani Jethmalani

(1979) 4 SCC 167cited in 110 judgementsfollowed or applied in 30

Read the judgement · Every citing judgement, by treatment

How later courts have used it

AI overview
  • The authority's test for transfer is whether there is something substantial, compelling and imperilling public justice, not mere convenience or hardship.1,2,3
  • Transfer is allowed where there is a reasonable apprehension backed by evidence that justice may not be done, such as threats to witnesses or failure of protective measures.4,5
  • In criminal transfers, a bare assertion of bias or unfairness without prima facie material is insufficient.6,7
  • In civil matrimonial transfers, balance of convenience is the prime consideration, but the plaintiff remains dominus litis.8,9
  • The authority's principle has been applied to civil transfers under Section 24 CPC despite arising in a criminal context.9,10
  • Transfer of criminal cases should be rare and exceptional; mere convenience of the petitioner does not suffice.3
Read the full overview· 4 paragraphs

The judgements here largely apply the authority's central test for transfer of cases: that a case must present something substantial, compelling and imperilling public justice, and that mere inconvenience or hardship does not suffice. Several orders allow transfer where the applicant's circumstances and balance of convenience clearly favoured it, especially in matrimonial or maintenance matters. Others dismiss where the applicant failed to show prejudice, a reasonable apprehension of bias, or a statutory bar to the chosen forum.1,4,2,3,11,5,12,8,9,13,10,14,6,15,7,16

In criminal transfers, courts in these orders have allowed transfer where there was evidence of threats to witnesses, failure of protective action, or where the applicant's dependence and hardship raised concerns of miscarriage of justice. They have dismissed where the allegation of bias or unfairness was a bare assertion without prima facie material, or where the petition was filed late and appeared dilatory. Mere inconvenience of travel or a language barrier, without more, has been held not to meet the 'expedient for the ends of justice' test under Section 406 Cr.P.C..5,4,6,3,7,16,1

In civil transfers under Section 24 CPC, courts in these orders have emphasised that balance of convenience is the prime consideration, but the plaintiff remains dominus litis, and transfer requires more than inconvenience to the defendant. They have allowed transfers of matrimonial suits to the wife's place of residence where she is dependent on her parents, where interconnected proceedings are pending at that place, or where the minor ordinarily resides there. They have refused where the applicant only alleged that the same judge who had made adverse findings would hear the appeal, since judicial findings are not personal remarks. The authority's principle has been expressly applied to civil transfers even though it arose in a criminal case.2,8,9,11,12,13,10,15

Some orders distinguish the authority by finding that the applicant failed to meet its threshold. For instance, one court refused to transfer an investigation to the CBI because the involvement of senior officials and political leaders, without prima facie material of influence, did not establish unfair investigation. Another refused to transfer a suit merely because of inconvenience to the defendant, as no statutory bar to the forum was shown. The authority has also been cited in orders dealing with a complete chargesheet and a Section 205 Cr.P.C. exemption application, but those orders do not directly apply or discuss its transfer-test ratio.14,11,17,18

Sample mostly of High Court orders from 2013–2026, with two Supreme Court orders; several orders are recent (2026) and not final appellate decisions; the authority is often cited in passing or distinguished on facts. Machine-written from the headnotes of the judgements on this page; numbers link to the source judgements. Not legal advice — read the judgements before relying on them.

Citing judgements

All 110, by treatment

The most-cited judgements that cite it, with how each treated it.

  1. Sonam Rai Vs State of U.P. and Another

    Allahabad HC4 Apr 2023TACR/620/2022Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi

    The High Court allowed a Transfer Application under Section 407 Cr.P.C. moving proceedings from Family Court, Azamgarh, to District Mau. The applicant, a maintenance recipient with a minor child, faced financial constraints and apprehended harassment and physical harm while attending court in Azamgarh.

    AllowedDistinguished
    Open

  2. Awadhesh Prasad Shukla Vs the State of Madhya Pradesh

    Madhya Pradesh HC16 Apr 2014WP/15186/2013

    VYAPAM examination irregularities prompted requests to transfer criminal investigations from STF to CBI. The Court refused transfer or appointment of SIT, disposed of the petitions, and directed separate suo motu proceedings for periodic monitoring.

    DisposedDistinguished
    Open

  3. N.Sundar Vs N.Suresh Babu

    Madras HC29 Oct 2013TR CMP/29/2013S. Tamilvanan

    This Court dismissed a transfer petition filed by defendants seeking to move a partition suit from a District Court to the High Court original side. The court held that mere inconvenience to parties does not warrant transfer when the lower court has territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction.

    DismissedDistinguished
    Open

  4. Sharif Ahmed and Another versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Another

    Supreme Court1 May 20242024 INSC 363Sanjiv Khanna

    Standard of a complete chargesheet under Section 173(2) CrPC; further evidence/supplementary chargesheet under Section 173(8) additive, not curative; inherent connect between chargesheet, cognizance under Section 190, summoning under Section 204, notice under Section 251;

    DisposedRelied on
    Open

  5. M/S Shri Sendhur Agro & Oil Industries versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.

    Supreme Court6 Mar 20252025 INSC 328J.b. Pardiwala

    Supreme Court of India (J.B. Pardiwala, J., author, with R. Mahadevan, J.) dismissed Transfer Petition (Crl.) No. 608 of 2024 and connected transfer petitions (Nos.

    DisposedRelied on
    Open

  6. Vikas Kumar Roorkewal versus State of Uttarakhand and Ors.

    Supreme Court11 Jan 20112011 INSC 27J.m. Panchal

    Transfer Petition (Crl.) No. 29 of 2008; Section 406 CrPC transfer of criminal case; witness protection; threats/intimidation of witnesses; hostile witness (driver of deceased); failure of justice; reasonable apprehension test for transfer; participatory role of trial judge; Section 311 CrPC; Section 165 Evidence Act;

    DisposedRelied on
    Open
Show 6 more

  1. D.A.V. Boys Sr. Sec. School etc. etc. versus Dav College Managing Commitiee

    Supreme Court23 Jul 20102010 INSC 424P. Sathasivam

    The Supreme Court dismissed transfer petitions seeking to move trademark infringement suits from Delhi to Chennai. The Court held that convenience is insufficient; transfer requires denial of justice in the chosen forum.

    DismissedRelied on
    Open

  2. Goddati Bharath Kumar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

    Andhra Pradesh HC30 Mar 2026TRCRLP/44/2026Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao

    Transfer of criminal case; Section 447 BNSS, 2023; apprehension of bias against Presiding Officer/learned Sessions Judge; allegation that Investigating Officer discussed case in judge's chambers for over an hour; bald and reckless assertions; no prima facie material;

    DismissedRelied on
    Open

  3. Ajaya Kumar Choudhury Vs State of Odisha

    Orissa HC25 Jun 2026CRLMC/1108/2026S.k. Panigrahi

    Exemption from personal appearance under Section 205 CrPC refused for want of supporting material; challenge under Section 528 BNSS 2023 dismissed by Orissa High Court; order of Special Judge CBI-I/PMLA Bhubaneswar in Crl. Misc. Case (PMLA) No. 06 of 2024 upheld;

    DisposedRelied on
    Open

  4. Smt. Bhanita Kalita Vs Bikash Ranjan Das

    Gauhati HC5 Apr 2026Tr.P.(C)./93/2025Robin Phukan

    Transfer petition Section 24 CPC Section 151 CPC; matrimonial transfer wife's convenience; balance of convenience; dominus litis; Guardians and Wards Act 1890 Section 9(1) jurisdiction minor ordinary residence; Miscellaneous Guardianship Case No. 4/2022 District Judge Bajali; Misc. (J) Case No. 13/2023;

    DisposedApplied
    Open

  5. Smti Sukla Mallick Saha Vs Dinku Saha

    Gauhati HC9 Mar 2026Tr.P.(C)./79/2025Robin Phukan

    Tr.P.(C)/79/2025 | Gauhati High Court | Robin Phukan, J. | 10.03.2026 | transfer petition Section 24 CPC | Title Suit (D) No. 55/2025 | Section 13(i) Hindu Marriage Act 1954 | divorce on ground of cruelty | wife's convenience | balance of convenience | dominus litis | plaintiff's choice of forum | 440 km…

    DisposedRelied on
    Open

  6. Smti Mamoli Das @ Mamli Das Vs Mononith Das

    Gauhati HC9 Feb 2026Tr.P.(C)./61/2025Robin Phukan

    Gauhati High Court, Tr.P.(C) 61/2025, decided 10.02.2026 by Robin Phukan, J.: transfer under Section 24 CPC of divorce suit T.S. (M) No. 13/2025 (Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955) from District Judge, Karbi Anglong, Diphu to District Judge, Sonitpur at Tezpur; balance of convenience versus dominus litis;

    DisposedApplied
    Open