Kerala High Court dismisses transfer petition by accused in Shuhaib murder case
The Kerala High Court has dismissed a plea by the accused in the alleged murder of Youth Congress leader S.P. Shuhaib seeking to transfer their trial out of the Additional Sessions Court, Thalassery. Justice C.S. Dias held that alleged errors by a trial court do not, by themselves, justify shifting proceedings unless there is a genuine and justifiable apprehension of an unfair trial.
Background
The petition was moved by the accused in the case relating to the killing of S.P. Shuhaib, a Youth Congress leader from Kannur. Among the petitioners is former Democratic Youth Federation of India (DYFI) leader Akash Thillenkery. They sought to move the proceedings from the Additional Sessions Court, Thalassery, to any other court of competent jurisdiction.
Grounds raised by the accused
The accused contended that they had lost faith in the Thalassery court and feared they would not receive a fair hearing. Their apprehension stemmed from two developments: the trial court’s dismissal of their request to conduct witness examination in a question-and-answer format, and the subsequent withdrawal of the bail earlier granted to them. On this basis, they argued that a transfer was necessary to ensure a fair and impartial trial.
High Court’s reasoning
Rejecting the transfer plea, Justice Dias underscored that the benchmark for shifting a criminal trial is not the correctness of any order passed by the trial court, but whether the apprehension of an unfair trial is “genuine and justifiable.” The court clarified that every judicial error, “however gross it may look,” cannot be equated with improper motive or bias.
In observations on the pressures faced by the district judiciary, the court noted that trial judges work “under a charged atmosphere” and are “constantly under psychological pressure with all the contestants and their lawyers almost breathing down their necks, more correctly, up to their nostrils.” Unlike higher courts, trial judges do not have the benefit of a detached environment to “think coolly and decide patiently,” the order added.
Emphasizing the standards of judicial conduct, the court said judges must exercise their powers “without any hint of partisanship and without appearing to frighten, coerce, confuse, or intimidate the witnesses or the parties.” It also cited a classical articulation of judicial virtues attributed to Socrates: judges should aim “to hear courteously, to answer wisely, to consider soberly, and to decide impartially.”
Directions to the trial court
While refusing to transfer the case, the High Court directed the sessions judge to ensure that both the prosecution and the defence are afforded a “full and effective opportunity” to participate in the trial. This includes, if warranted, suo motu reopening of evidence and permitting counsel for the accused to cross-examine witnesses. The court also recorded that the accused must cooperate with the trial.
Significance and next steps
The ruling keeps the proceedings anchored in the Additional Sessions Court, Thalassery, but with explicit safeguards to address the accused’s concerns about fairness. By delineating the narrow grounds for transfer and reinforcing the duty to ensure a level playing field, the High Court has charted a path for the trial court to proceed while upholding procedural fairness. The matter will now continue before the Thalassery court in line with the High Court’s directions.
