IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2014
(Transfer Petition under Article 139A of the Constitution of
India read with Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure)
IN THE MATTER OF:
BEFORE THE BEFORE THIS
HIGH COURT HONBLE
COURT

Ms. X
Local Camp address
C/o N-14A,
Saket, New Delhi
110017. Defendant No. 5 Petitioner

Versus


1. Swatanter Kumar
Son of late Om Prakash
Resident of 9 Tyagraj Road,
New Delhi 110001 Plaintiff Respondent No. 1


2. The Indian Express
Through Editor-in-Chief
and Publisher
2
nd
Floor, Express Towers
Nariman Point
Mumbai 400021 Defendant No. 1 Respondent No. 2

Also at:

Corporate Office
Through its Resident Editor,
Express Buidling
9-10 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,
New Delhi 110002

3. Mr. Maneesh Chibber
Reporter
The Indian Express Ltd.
Express Building
9-10 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,
New Delhi - 110002 Defendant No. 2 Respondent No. 3

4. Bennett, Coleman and Company Limited
The Managing Director

The Editor-in-Chief of Times Now
Dr. D.N. Road
Mumbai 400 001 Defendant No. 3(a) Respondent No. 4
Also at:
Corporate Office:
Times House
7, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg
New Delhi 110 103

5. Times Global Broadcasting
Company Limited
Through its Managing Director
1
st
floor, Trade House
Kamla Mills Compound
Senapati Bapat Marg
Lower Parel
Mumbai 400 013 Defendant No. 3(b) Respondent o. 5

6. TV18 Broadcasting Limited
Through its Managing Director
Editor-In-Chief of CNN-IBN
Express Trade Tower
Plot No. 15-16
Sector 16-A
NOIDA

Uttar Pradesh
201301 Defendant No. 4(a) Respondent No. 6

Also at its registered office at:
503,504 & 507, 5
th
Floor,
Mercantile House,
15 Kasturba Gandhi Marg,
New Delhi 110001

7. Turner International
Through its Managing Director
Express Trade Tower
Plot No. 15-16
Sector 16-A
NOIDA
Uttar Pradesh
201301 Defendant No. 4(b) Respondent No. 7

8. Union of India
Through the Secretary
Through the Ministry of
Information and Broadcasting
Shastri Bhawan
New Delhi Defendant No. 6 Respondent No. 8


PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 139 A OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 25 OF
THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR TRANSFER OF
THE SUIT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 1 HEREIN
BEING C.S. (O.S) 102 OF 2014 TITLED AS SWATANTER
KUMAR VERSUS THE INDIAN EXPRESS LTD. AND ORS.
PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF
DELHI AT DELHI TO THE CITY CIVIL COURT,
BANGALORE OR TO ANY OTHER COURT OF
COMPETENT JURISDICTION.
To,
THE HONBLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND
HIS HONBLE COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE
HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

THE HUMBLE TRANSFER PETITION OF
THE PETITIONER ABOVE NAMED.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:

1. That the present petition under Article 139A of the
Constitution of India read with Section 25 of the Code
of Civil Procedure is being filed by the Petitioner above-
named, seeking transfer of suit filed by the Respondent
No. 1 herein being C.S. (O.S) 102 of 2014 titled as

Swatanter Kumar versus The Indian Express Ltd. and
Ors. pending before the Honble High Court of Delhi at
Delhi to the City Civil Court, Bangalore or to any other
court of competent jurisdiction.
2. That the brief facts giving rise to the present petition
are as follows:
a. That the Petitioner is presently 25 years of age. She
graduated as a lawyer in 2012 and is presently working
with an NGO in Bangalore for the last one and a half
years. She has no real connections with the legal
fraternity in India, including in Delhi.

b. That the Respondent No. 1 is a former Judge of this
Honble Court. He practiced as a lawyer in the Delhi
High Court for a period of 23 years, during which time
he was designated a senior counsel by the Honble
Delhi High Court on February 8,1994. He was
appointed as an Additional Judge of the Delhi High
Court on November 10, 1994. He was subsequently
transferred to Punjab and Haryana Court on November
30, 1994 and was appointed as permanent Judge on
November 30, 1995. He was then transferred back to
the Delhi High Court on October 4, 2004 and then
elevated as the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court
with effect from March 31, 2007. On December 12,

2009, the Respondent No. 1 was appointed/ elevated
as a judge of this Honble Court, from which he
resigned on December 19, 2012 and assumed office as
the Chairman of the National Green Tribunal, New
Delhi, a post he currently holds.

c. That the Respondent Nos. 2 8 are Defendants
arraigned by the Respondent No. 1 in the above-
mentioned suit filed by him. The Respondent Nos. 2
7 are entities/members of the media and the
Respondent No. 8 is the Union of India, through the
Ministry of Information and Broadcasting.

d. That the Petitioner, a law student at the time, was
scheduled to work as a judicial-intern under
Respondent No. 1 herein, in his capacity as a judge of
this Honble Court, from May 16, 2011 June 25, 2011.
She joined the office of the Respondent No. 1 and
began the internship on May 16, 2011. It was during
this time, that Petitioner was subjected to sexual-
harassment at the workplace by the Respondent No. 1.

e. That as a result, the Petitioner, fearing her safety,
immediately informed her parents and asked her father
to arrange travel for her to return to Kolkata. She also

informed her friends about the incident. She
discontinued her internship on May 29, 2011, citing a
family emergency as the reason for her immediate
departure, as she was afraid she would be compelled
to confront the Respondent No. 1, something she was
reluctant to do at the time.

f. That the Respondent No. 1 resigned as a judge of this
Honble Court on December 19, 2012, to assume office
as the Chairperson of the National Green Tribunal,
New Delhi, a post he currently holds.

g. That in November 2013,a complaint of sexual
harassment formally came to be made to the Chief
Justice of India, against Justice A.K. Ganguly (retired),
by an intern (hereinafter the first intern). In response
to the complaint, the then Chief Justice of India, on
November 12, 2013, constituted a 3-judge Committee
to conduct an enquiry into the Complaint of the first
intern, comprising Their Lordships Justice R.M. Lodha,
Justice H.L. Dattu and Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai,
as they then were.

h. That in light of the setting-up of a Committee to probe
into allegations of sexual harassment by the first intern

against a retired judge of the Supreme Court, the
Petitioner on November 30, 2013, submitted an
Affidavit-with-Annexures as a Complaint against
Respondent No. 1, containing details of sexual
harassment that she faced by him, addressed to the
Chief Justice of India.

i. That The Committee established by the Chief Justice of
India to conduct an enquiry into the complaint by the
first intern, on December 5, 2013, found that a prima
facie case of sexual harassment was established
against Justice A.K. Ganguly (retired). On the same
day, that is, December 5, 2013, the Full-Court of this
Honble Court resolved that it would not entertain any
complaint of sexual harassment against retired judges,
while recommending no further action as the accused
person had demitted office on the day of the
commission of the offence.

j. That in light of the decision of the Full Court of this
Honble Court, the Affidavit-with-Annexures containing
the Complaint of the Petitioner came to be returned to
her by the Registrar General of this Honble Court in
December 2013.


k. That in January 2014, news articles were published in
various newspapers citing the differential treatment in
dealing with the complaint of the first intern and the
Petitioner.

l. That on January 10, 2014, a news item written by the
Respondent No. 3 was published by the Respondent
No. 2 newspaper stating that another intern had made
allegations against another judge of this Honble Court.
The same evening, the Respondent Nos. 4 and 6,
telecast news programmes, naming the Plaintiff as
being the judge against whom allegations of sexual
harassment were made.

m. That on January 11, 2014, the Respondent No. 2,
published an article naming the Respondent No. 1 as
being the judge against whom a complaint of sexual
harassment had been made.

n. Having being returned her complaint by the Registrar
General of this Honble Court, the Petitioner in January,
2014, filed a Writ Petition before this Honble Court,
under Article 32 of the Constitution, being W.P. (C) No.
15/2014, seeking inter alia, the setting-up a permanent
mechanism in this Honble Court to redress sexual-

harassment at the workplace for women by all judges,
retired or occupying-office.

o. That by way of an order dated January 15, 2014, this
Honble Court was pleased to issue notice in W.P. (C)
No. 15/2014 to all parties to the said Writ Petition with
respect to the setting up of a permanent mechanism in
this Honble Court to redress sexual-harassment at the
workplace for women by all judges, retired or
occupying-office.

p. That on the same day, that is, the afternoon of January
15, 2014, unknown to the Petitioner, the Respondent
No. 1 moved a suit, being C.S. (O.S.) No. 102/2014,
before the High Court of Delhi, inter-alia, seeking
damages on grounds of defamation and a permanent
and interim injunction order against all Defendants
arraigned therein, including the Petitioner, in respect of
the alleged defamatory imputations, which flowed from
the Affidavit-with-Annexures of the Petitioner sent to
the Chief Justice of India. Along with the suit, an interim
application, I.A. 723 of 2014, was moved (hereinafter
the interim application). A true copy of the plaint in
C.S.(OS) 102/2014 dated 14.01.2014 filed before the
Honble High Court of Delhi is annexed herewith and

marked as Annexure P-1 (pages __ to __). A true
copy of I.A. 723 of 2014 filed by the Respondent No. 1
dated 14.01.2014 before the Honble High Court of
Delhi is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure P-
2 (pages __ to __).However the Petitioner did not
know she had been arraigned as a party Defendant.
Unlike the other Defendants she had not been issued
any legal notice prior to the filing of the suit and no
legal notice about the filing of the suit and the IA 723 of
2014 for interim reliefs.

q. That on January 15, 2014, at around 3.00 p.m., the
interim application under Order XXXIX, rule 1 and 2,
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 came to be heard ex-
parte as against the Petitioner. No prior notice was
served on the Petitioner. The Respondent No. 1 was
represented by no less than 10 senior lawyers and 17
other lawyers formally appearing for him. The Petitioner
has reliably learnt that in actual fact he had a large
number of lawyers in the Court at the hearing such that
the court was packed with his lawyers/supporters. The
Petitioner is reliably informed that the Senior Lawyer for
the Respondent No. 1 was heard at length and was
repeatedly supported by the oral submissions of other
senior lawyers representing the Respondent No. 1.

The Ld. Single Judge reserved the matter for orders
and directed that the Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 therein only
publish/ telecast content relating to court orders till the
pronouncement of the interim orders. A true copy of the
order dated 15.1.2014, passed by the Honble High
Court of Delhi in C.S.(OS) 102/2014 is annexed
herewith and marked as Annexure P-3 (pages __ to
__).

r. That on January 16, 2014,The Ld. Single Judge of the
High Court of Delhi did not sit in the morning in Open-
Court. At around 1.00 p.m., the Ld. Single Judge was
pleased to pass an injunction, whereby he, restrained
all Defendants in the suit, as well as those who were
not made parties or named in the suit, from
publishing/telecasting any information relating to the
complaint of sexual harassment made by the
Petitioner; directed that they remove the content held to
be offensive and further restrained all persons from
publishing the photograph of the Respondent No. 1 in
any manner which may suggest his connection with the
complaint of the Petitioner. A true copy of the order
dated 16.01.2014 passed by the Honble High Court of
Delhi in C.S.(OS) 102/2014 is annexed herewith and
marked as Annexure P-4 (pages __ to __).


s. That on February 24, 2014, C.S. (OS) 102/2014 was
listed before the Ld. Single Judge. Again the
Respondent No. 1 was represented by 6 senior lawyers
and 10 other lawyers. The interim orders were directed
to continue. A true copy of the order dated 24.02.2014
passed by the Honble High Court of Delhi in C.S.(OS)
102/2014 is annexed herewith and marked as
Annexure P-5 (pages __ to __).

t. That subsequently, after being served with the suit
proceedings, in March 2014, the Petitioner filed her
written statement, pleading justification, that is, the
truth of the averments made in the Complaint
submitted to the Chief Justice of India. A true copy of
the written statement filed by the Petitioner in C.S.(OS)
102/2014 is annexed herewith and marked as
Annexure P-6 (pages __ to __)
u. That on May 5, 2014the Petitioner filed an application
under Order XXXIX Rule 4, seeking the vacation of the
interim injunction granted by the Ld. Single Judge in
C.S. (O.S) 102 of 2014 on January 16, 2014. On the
same day, the Respondent No. 1 filed their replication
to the written statement of the Petitioner. The next day,
on May 6, 2014, the Counsel for the Petitioner was

served with two volumes of additional documents which
were filed in the matter at around 4.00 p.m.

v. That on May 7, 2014, C.S. (O.S.) 102/2014 was listed
before the Ld. Single Judge of the Delhi High Court
again. The Respondent No. 1 was again represented
by 7 senior lawyers and 11other lawyers. The lawyer
appearing for the Petitioner sought an adjournment as
she had just been served a copy of the replication and
been served with the fresh documents which ran into
hundreds of pages just the day before at 4.00 p.m. The
senior lawyer appearing for the Respondent No. 5 also
sought an adjournment because he was not served
with a copy of the written statement of the Petitioner.
The Petitioner has not been served by the Defendant
No. 1 with the copy of the written statements filed by
other Defendants. Despite an interim injunction
operating against the Defendant the lawyers appearing
for the Respondent No. 1 vehemently sought to
proceed with the matter.

w. The Ld. Single Judge adjourned the Application under
O 39 R 1& 2 to May 15, 2014. A true copy of the order
dated 7.5.2014 passed by the Honble High Court in

C.S.(OS) 102/2014 is annexed herewith and marked as
Annexure P-7 (pages __ to __).



GROUNDS
3. The Petitioner approaches this Honble Court for
transfer of the abovementioned suit, C.S. (OS) 102 of
2014 as prayed for, on the following, amongst other,
grounds which are taken without prejudice to one
another:

A. Because the Petitioner has a fundamental right to a fair
trial and genuinely apprehends that she will not get fair
trial in the Delhi High Court.

B. Because the Respondent No. 1 has been a judge of the
High Court of Delhi and on his own showing, after 23
years of practice in the Delhi High Court, the
Respondent No. 1 was a judge of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court, a judge of the Delhi High Court,
the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court and the
judge of this Honble Court and at present he is the
Chairperson of the National Green Tribunal. During his
judicial career he has obviously developed good

relations with his colleagues, particularly the lawyers
and judges. The Senior Counsel representing him
have all invariably appeared before him either as a
High Court Judge or a Supreme Court Judge and in all
probability and potentially even before him as Chair of
the Green Tribunal. In the circumstances, the petitioner
reasonability apprehends that there is likely to be an
institutional bais operating in his favour. It is not the
submission of the petitioner that there will in fact be a
bais, but the law as laid down by this Honble Court is
that justice must not only be done but also be seen to
be done.

C. Because, in contrast, the Petitioner graduated as a
lawyer in 2012 and is working in an NGO in Bangalore
for the last one and a half years with no real
connections to the legal fraternity in India, including in
Delhi. The Petitioner is hopelessly in a subordinate
position qua the Respondent No. 1 in the legal battle
between them in the Delhi High Court, which is
completely unequal.

D. Because the Plaint has been carefully engineered to
invoke the influence of the Respondent No. 1, in as

much as it records that it has been settled and re-
settled by four senior lawyers of high repute, all of
whom have been designated senior lawyers by the
Delhi High Court demonstrating a show of strength and
support of the Senior advocates that he enjoys.

E. Because at the hearing of the interim Application on
January 15, 2014, the Respondent No. 1 was able to
have at least 10 senior lawyers and 17 other lawyers
formally appearing for him. The Petitioner has reliably
learnt that in actual fact he had a large number of
lawyers in the Court at the hearing such that the court
was packed with his lawyers/supporters. This was
done to show that the overwhelming members of the
Bar were in his favour, thus leading to a complete
imbalance of power between the Petitioner and the
Respondent, and making a fair trial impossible.

F. Because in contrast, the Petitioner has learnt that the
other Defendants who appeared at the hearing were
hard pressed to secure a senior lawyer till the last
moment to appear for them as most of them had
already been retained by the Respondent No. 1.


G. Because even at the hearings on February 24, 2014
and May 7, 2014, the Respondent No. 1 was formally
represented by 7 senior lawyers and 11 other lawyers
respectively, in a show of strength intended to overawe
the Petitioners lawyer and create the impression that
the Respondent No.1 has the support of the entire bar.

H. Because on the other hand, the Petitioner has
contacted many senior lawyers, seeking that they
represent her in the suit before the Delhi High Court.
All of them have refused to do so. As result, the
Petitioner is faced with a hopelessly one sided
situation, which is wholly loaded for one reason or the
other in favour of the Respondent No. 1.

I. On May 7, 2014, when the suit was taken up by the
Delhi High Court, the senior lawyers appearing on
behalf of the Respondent No. 1 sought to overawe the
lawyers for the Defendant No. 5, the Petitioner herein
by vehemently opposing the request for adjournment
even when the prejudice was caused to the
Respondent no. 1 since there was an injunction
operating against the Defendants.
J. Because the Petitioner reasonably apprehends that she
will not gat a fair trial in the Delhi High Court.


K. Because the apprehensions of the Petitioner are borne
out by what transpired in the present suit and the
manner in which interim order that was passed ex-
parte by the Delhi High Court on January 15, 2014.

L. Because the Petitioner was neither served with a legal
notice prior to filing of the suit nor with the papers and
proceedings in the suit, before the Interim Application
was moved on the January 15, 2014. This is despite
the fact that in a suit on defamation the Defendant can
plead justification (that is the truth of the allegations) as
a defence, in which case no interim injunction can be
granted. That is the settled law in common law
countries, including England and India.

M. The Learned Judge had ample time to give notice to
the Petitioner herein to ascertain her stand and if
necessary to keep the matter the following day for
arguments as is evident from the fact that the Learned
Judge did not in fact sit in court and
passed/pronounced the order only around 1.00 p.m.
the next day.


N. The purpose of the notice to the present Petitioner was
to obviously to ascertain her stand and if she pleaded
justification not to grant the injunction, which is the
settled legal position both in England and in India.

O. Because contrary to the legal position, the Learned
Single Judge before whom the Interim Application was
moved in the said suit, at the instance of the
Respondent No.1, by way of the order dated January
16, 2014, has erred in law and relied on the judgment
of this Honble Court in Sahara India Real Estate
Corporation Limited &Ors. v. Securities and Exchange
Board of India, (2012) 10 SCC 603, which is on the
issue of sub judice and contempt and has no bearing
to the law of defamation.

P. Because, further, the Learned Single Judge, by way of
the order dated January 16, 2014, gave orders beyond
the prayers, which is impermissible in a suit.

Q. Because the Learned Single Judge, by way of the order
dated January 16, 2014, commented on the delay in
filing the complaint to the Chief Justice of India by the
Petitioner, and in effect commented on the merits of

the matter which was not before it and in fact were
sub-judice before this Honble Court.

R. By way of the said order dated January 16, 2014, the
Learned Single Judge has granted an over-broad and
sweeping temporary injunction order against
unidentifiable, and every conceivable, person from
reporting on the subject of the allegations directed
against the Plaintiff. The enhancement of the scope of
injunction orders to cover within it and bind unidentified
persons, who have not, on the date of seeking relief for
the alleged cause of action, participated in giving rise
to the alleged cause of action, is alien to suits relating
to defamation.

S. Because the entire effort of the Respondent No. 1 is to
overawe the Petitioner in her effort to seek redressal of
the sexual harassment that she faced by the
Respondent No. 1.

T. Because the entire atmosphere required for a free and
fair trail does not exist in the High Court of Delhi.
U. Because, in addition, it is submitted that Delhi is an
inconvenient forum for the Petitioner, as she has no
access to lawyers to provide her with adequate legal

representation. The Petitioner is living and working in
Bangalore and it would be not just be inconvenient for
her to attend the proceedings of the trial in Delhi, but
also threatening and intimidating in which the
Respondent is represented by 22 lawyers including
Senior Lawyers.

V. Because it is imperative to transfer the case to a neutral
venue, even if it may cause some inconvenience to the
Respondent No. 1.

W. Because it is therefore in the interest of justice to
transfer the said suit to a neutral venue.

X. That the Defendant resides in Bangalore and since she
has pleaded the justification of the truth of the
allegations in her affidavit, she will be the primary
witness in the suit against her. Considering that the
balance of power between the Plaintiff and her is so
unequal and considering that the Plaintiff is well-
networked in Delhi having regard to the factors
mentioned hereinabove the Defendant has absolutely
no chance of equal or near equal legal representation
in Delhi and hence a fair trial will be jeopardized. The

petitioner is employed in Bangalore and has the
support of her friends and colleagues in Bangalore
which said support is critical for her to carry through
the litigation which is of a complex nature and pursue
her complaint against the judge.

Y. Notwithstanding that the Defendant is a qualified
lawyer, she has barely put in a year or two into her
practice and is not able to mobilize adequate and
appropriate legal services at senior levels of
representation as compared to the Plaintiff who is over
66 years of age, been a Chief Justice of various High
Courts and a judge of this Honble Court and currently
holds the position of Chairperson of the Green
Tribunal. These factors will jeopardize a fair trial. It is in
the interest of public justice that the suit be transferred
to Bangalore.

Z. The overarching consideration for transfer of a suit
under Article 139 A of the Constitution read with
Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the
transfer is expedient for the ends of justice. Hence
because of the circumstances of this case, and having
regard to the huge inequality in the balance of power

between the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 1
transfer is expedient to meet the ends of justice.

AA. The transfer is also expedient to meet the ends of
justice for the reason that the Respondent No.1 has
been on his own showing a distinguished judge of the
Delhi High Court, the Chief Justice of the Bombay
High Court and a judge of the Supreme Court, and now
the Chairperson of a very important Tribunal namely,
National Green Tribunal.

BB. The ability of the Petitioner to mobilize the Bar of which
he was a part of the High Court, of which he was a
significant judge is also evident from the show of
strength in the court on each date of hearing which is
intended to intimidate Defendant No. 5 and or her legal
representatives. Further having regard to the need for
the Defendant No.5 to suppress her identity, to protect
her dignity and well-being she is unable to enter the
court room as all eyes will be fixed on her leading to
great embarrassment and intimidation.

CC. That justice in a court of law must not be done but also
be seen to be done and it cannot be seen to be done if
the suit is tried in New Delhi.


DD. That the Plaintiff have claimed a damage of 5 crore
against the Defendant jointly or severally including
Defendant No.5 and considering that it is the Petitioner
who is alleged to have made the defamatory
allegations which have been published by the
Defendants No.1-4, the Defendant No.5 is in danger of
being held liable to pay compensation of an amount
way beyond her means and hence the justice of the
situation demands that she is given an appropriate
opportunity to defend herself. That on the other hand
no prejudice will be caused to the Plaintiff if the suit is
transferred to Bangalore having regard to his
enormous means and the ability to mobilize all manner
of support including legal support.

EE. That for the assurance of a fair trial is an imperative of
dispensation of justice and the natural criteria for the
court to decide whether a suit of the present nature
should be transferred is not only that the assurance of
impartiality be guaranteed but also that the
appearance of such impartiality be guaranteed and
any violation of that assurance is a violation of Article
21 of the Constitution of India. In the circumstances,
there is a danger that that appearance of impartiality in

the mind of a reasonable person as also in the public
may not be assurance is not available to Defendant
No.5. That the ends of justice demand that the present
suit be transferred by this Honble Court in exercise of
its powers under Section 25 of the Civil Procedure
Code and or Article 139-A of the Constitution of India.

FF. That in any event the Petitioner entertains a reasonable
apprehension that justice will not be done having
regard to the institutional position of the Respondent
No.1 and the position which Respondent No.1 has
occupied in the High Court of Delhi where several
sitting judges are known to him personally and where
many of the lawyers representing him are likely to have
appeared before him in a judicial capacity both in the
High Court and in the Supreme Court and potentially
and possibly even now in the National Green Tribunal.
That having regard to the circumstance mentioned
above, it can be said that Defendant No.5 entertains a
reasonable apprehension that justice will not be seen
to be done. As has been well said on innumerable
occasions that justice is not only to be done but is also
to be seem to be done.


GG. That the Petitioner has approached several senior
lawyers in Delhi with the request that her case in the
suit be pleaded pro bono but the request has been
declined on various grounds including that the
Respondent No.1 has already approached them for
support, assistance and advice and hence they are not
in a position to represent her. That the Petitioner has
also filed a petition against the Respondent No.1
before this Honble Court for an enquiry into the
allegation of sexual harassment against the
Respondent No 1, and at that stage , she had
approached several lawyers appearing in the Supreme
Court of India and several of them had declined on the
ground that the Respondent No 1 had already
approached them.

HH. The Petitioner approached several senior counsels to
represent her in the High Court but all of whom
declined stating that they had already been
approached by Respondent No.1 to represent them in
the Supreme Court and or on the ground that they
have either or otherwise been consulted by
Respondent No.1. The Petitioner submits that this is a
well known practice of disabling seniors to represent

an opponent. Similar trends have been observed by
the Petitioner both in her petition in the Supreme Court
and in the present suit. All these factors create a
reasonable apprehension in her mind that justice may
not be and will not be done.

II. That the apprehension of not getting a fair trial and an
impartial trial is reasonable and not imaginary and
hence the present suit is required to be transferred.
That it is imperative that every justice system must
function impartially and without any bias and that
reasonable apprehension that they may not so function
is sufficient ground to transfer the present suit.


JJ. That the contention of Petitioner who has made
allegation of sexual harassment against Respondent
No.1 is of a serious nature and that also has to be
taken into consideration while deciding the transfer of
suit.

KK. That free and fair dispensation of justice is a
component of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and
any reasonable apprehension of bias would shake the
confidence of the general public in the judiciary as a

whole and seriously undermine the rule of law. Hence
the question is not whether there will be actual bias in
the dispensation of justice but whether there is a
reasonable apprehension of that there will be a denial
of fair trial in the mind of petitioner.

LL. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the facts
have created a reasonable apprehension in the mind of
Petitioner that there will be a denial of fair trial.
MM. That the manner in which documents have been
tendered in Court, is a manner unknown to law in as
much as that no application to further seeking
permission for filing additional document or showing
the relevance of the documents was made. At an
interim stage documents have been permitted to be
filed of a completely irrelevant nature which speak
about the personal preferences of the Petitioner taken
from her blog and the issues and causes that she
stood for having no relevance on the subject matter of
the suit only in an attempt to malign her character and
cause prejudice to her.

NN. That in any event the Defendant would have a right to
remain present during the arguments to give

instructions to her lawyers or and the manner in which
the Respondent is represented by 22 and more
lawyers such a fair and unbiased trial is not possible
which will ensure her dignity and privacy.

OO. That the paramount consideration in deciding an
application for transfer has to be that public faith has to
be maintained in the judiciary, and given the stature,
and the institutional position that the Respondent
occupied and continues to occupy and the gravity of
the allegations made by the Petitioner herein against
him it is expedient that the trial be transferred out of the
High Court of Delhi.

PP. The Petitioners reasonable apprehension that she will
be denied of a fair hearing in the intimidating
atmosphere that prevails in the court-room on each
date of hearing having regard to the large number of
lawyers who are present in the court in support of the
Respondent No.1.

QQ. That the possibility of bias must be judged by strict
standards for the reason that the law attaches great
importance not only to whether justice has been done
but also to the appearance of impartiality both to the

party and to the community. From the point of view of
public policy, the foundation for the strict standard
which focuses on the appearance of impartiality lies in
the obligation of the Court to defend the purity of the
administration of justice and thereby sustain the
confidence of the public in the system.

RR. That it is an abiding value of the constitutional system
that the adjudicator must be free from bias which
requires this Honble Court to have a vigilant approach
to the possibility that the parties or the public may
entertain reasonable apprehension that adjudicator
may not be biased or impartial.

SS. Article 14.1 of the International Covenant of Civil and
Political Rights is to the effect all persons shall be
equal before the Court and Tribunal. In the
determination of criminal charge or his rights and
obligation in a suit at law. Every one shall be entitled to
fair trial by a competent, independent and impartial
Tribunal established by law.

TT. That from the point of view of public at large the
foundation of strict approach lies in the application of

Court to defend the period of administration of
justice and thereby ensure confidence in the system.


4. The Petitioner states that no other petition seeking the
same or similar relief has been filed by the Petitioner
either in this court or before any other court.

PRAYER
It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Honble
Court may be graciously be pleased to:

a. transfer the suit filed by the Respondent No. 1 herein
being C.S. (O.S) 102 of 2014 titled as Swatanter
Kumar versus The Indian Express Ltd. and Ors.
pending before the Honble High Court of Delhi at Delhi
to the City Civil Court, Bangalore or to any other court
of competent jurisdiction; and

b. pass such other and/or further order(s) and/or
direction(s) as may be deemed just and proper in the
facts and circumstances of the case.



AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER
SHALL EVER PRAY AS IN DUTY BOUND.
Drawn and Filed By:
Anindita Pujari
Advocate for the Petitioner

NEW DELHI
DRAWN ON: 9.5.2014
FILED ON: 12.5.2014