The Karnataka High Court recently delivered a significant ruling, rejecting a petition filed by former Member of Parliament Prajwal Revanna. Revanna had sought to transfer the ongoing rape trials against him from the current sessions court, alleging that the presiding judge was biased.
Justice M.I. Arun, overseeing the matter, stated explicitly that any observations made by the sessions judge during previous judgments against Prajwal Revanna cannot be interpreted as a sign of bias. The High Court emphasized that such judicial remarks were not indicative of prejudice.
The court also took note of the sessions judge’s intention to conduct the rape trial on a day-to-day basis and the subsequent criticism regarding adjournments requested by Revanna’s legal team. While the High Court acknowledged that the sessions judge had expressed disapproval of what appeared to be attempts to prolong the case through delay tactics, Revanna’s advocate maintained there was no deliberate effort to delay the proceedings.
Concluding its decision, the High Court highlighted a crucial point: if criminal cases could be transferred simply based on allegations of bias, it would open the floodgates for similar petitions across all criminal trials, potentially undermining judicial process and stability.