In Brief
A practicing advocate from Mumbai sought transfer of criminal cases from Delhi and Ghaziabad to Mumbai, citing inconvenience to her professional engagements and apprehension of fair trial. The Supreme Court held that apprehension of unfairness must be reasonable, not imaginary. While personal inconvenience may be a relevant factor, it cannot override the convenience of prosecution, witnesses, and other parties—especially when most witnesses were located in the original jurisdiction (Delhi/Ghaziabad). The Court rejected the transfer petitions, holding that no universal rule applies; transfer depends on case-specific facts."
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.