In Brief
The Supreme Court rejected a request to transfer criminal cases RC Nos. 9 and 10 of 2018 on the ground that the trial judge had allegedly made prejudicial observations. The judge had made remarks explaining the delay in reporting a rape allegation while deciding a related case. The Court held that these observations were purely procedural—explaining investigative context, not opining on the crime's merits. Since the judge had expressly stated his observations would not bear on the merits, and directed himself to decide the cases solely on evidence before him, transfer was unwarranted. The applications were disposed of with directions that the judge remain uninfluenced by prior observations."
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.