Supreme Court Dismisses Prajwal Revanna's Plea To Transfer Trial Of Rape Cases To Another Court; Rejects Argument Of Bias
Anmol Kaur Bawa
11 Dec 2025 12:46 PM IST
The Supreme Court on Thursday (December 11) refused the plea of Janata Dal (Secular) leader and former MP Prajwal Revanna to transfer the trial of two rape cases from a Special MP/MLA Court in Bengaluru to another Court.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi refused to accept Revanna's argument of bias on the part of the trial judge. It may be noted that Revanna was earlier convicted and sentenced to life in another rape case by the same Court. He approached the Supreme Court after the Karnataka High Court refused his plea to change the trial judge.
Senior Advocates Siddharth Luthra and Siddarth Dave appeared for Revanna in the Supreme Court. They also highlighted that the judge made adverse comments against the lawyers too.
The bench however refused to accept the argument of bias. "These observations of the presiding officer cannot be the ground of bias. We have no reason to doubt that the officer would not be swayed by the fact that the petitioner was found guilty in the earlier case...and will confine his conclusions on the basis of evidence led in the pending trial," the bench observed.
The bench also said that the High Court can be approached seeking the expunction of the remarks made by the High Court.
The Trial court at Bengaluru had rejected his plea seeking transfer on the ground that it was the special MP/MLA court which was specially designated to try offences against elected representatives. The High Court also endorsed this reasoning.
Background
Before the High Court, Revanna moved two petitions seeking that the trials being conducted against him by the Special MP/MLA court be transferred to another court, on the ground of bias by the presiding officer.
WP 29258/2025 soughttransfer of criminal case SPL.C.C.NO.5/2025 (Arising out of Crime No. 20/2024) for offences registered under Sections 376(2)(n)(repeated rape), 354(A)(sexual harassment), 354(B)(assault or use of force with intent to disrobe), 354(C) (voyeurism), 506 (criminal intimidation), and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence )IPC and Section 66E of IT Act pending on the file of Additional City and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases against present and former MPs and MLAs) to any other court of sessions by invoking Section 408 CrPC.
WP 29290/2025 sought transfer of a second criminal case SPL.C.C.NO.1586/2025 (Arising out of Crime No. 107/2024) for offences registered under Sections 376(rape),376(2), 354(A), 354(B), 354(C), 506,509 and 201 IPC and Section 66E of IT Act pending on the file of Additional City and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases against present and former MPs and MLAs) to any other court of sessions.
The High Court bench of Justice MI Arun held: "It is seen that the trial court intended to take the trial on a day-to-day basis. In the process any adjournments sought by the petitioner was frowned upon. The observations in the judgement may sound a bit harsh, but the same cannot be construed as bias on part of the presiding officer. Admittedly, the petitioner has tried to drag the case and resort to delay tactics, which has been frowned upon by the trial court."
"If that can be a ground for transfer, there would be such petitions in almost all criminal cases. This practise cannot be permitted. On erroneous appreciation of evidence, the petitioner can always challenge the trial court judgement. That also cannot be a ground for seeking a transfer."
Case title: PRAJWAL REVANNA AND STATE OF KARNATAKA | SLP(Crl) No. 18850/2025