In the Prajwal Revanna case, the Supreme Court clarified that trial court observations cannot be deemed biased or prejudgment. CJI Surya Kant emphasized that judges must decide cases solely on evidence, maintaining judicial integrity and fairness.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India recently heard the plea of Prajwal Revanna, challenging the Karnataka High Court’s refusal to transfer sexual harassment and rape cases against him to another trial court. Revanna had alleged bias on the part of the trial judge, seeking a change of venue for his pending cases.
Supreme Court Observations
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, while hearing the case, clarified that remarks made by trial judges during proceedings, especially when rooted in the trial record or High Court observations, cannot automatically be construed as bias. CJI Kant noted:
“These observations cannot form the foundation of bias or pre-judging the issue. The presiding judge will decide solely on the evidence presented in the pending cases.”
He further emphasized that judges occasionally make innocuous observations based on case records or prior proceedings, and such remarks do not undermine judicial impartiality.
During the hearing, senior advocates Siddharth Luthra and Siddharth Dave, representing Revanna, raised concerns about remarks made by the trial court against defense counsel.
- Sr Adv Siddharth Dave requested expunction of the remarks.
- CJI Surya Kant suggested that issues like expunction of remarks can be appropriately addressed before the High Court.
- Justice Bagchi underscored the importance of upholding judicial discipline and warned against holding judges “at ransom” for expressing legitimate observations.
The court also criticized certain actions by the defense counsel, calling them unethical and professionally unacceptable, and suggested that the lawyer tender an apology before the High Court.
ALSO READ: “Three Years She Was Silent”: Prajwal Revanna Claims Rape Case Is ‘Political Vendetta’ Before Karnataka High Court
Revanna had sought to transfer the trial from the 81st City Civil Court, Bengaluru (MP MLA court) to another court. The Supreme Court examined the High Court’s September 24, 2025, order declining the transfer and found no reason to interfere, stating:
“We have no doubt that the presiding judge shall not be swayed by previous convictions or findings and will conclude the trial solely based on evidence in the present case.”
The CJI also highlighted that transfers sometimes occur due to workload or logistical reasons, even in the Supreme Court, but this does not indicate judicial bias.
CJI Surya Kant emphasized the need to restore public trust in the judicial system, ensuring that district judiciary morale is maintained. The court made it clear that approaching the Supreme Court should not create an impression of guaranteed favorable outcomes.
“We must take care of the morale of our district judiciary while ensuring justice is delivered fairly,”
said CJI Kant.
Case Title:
Prajwal Revanna Vs State of Karnataka
SLP(Crl) No. 18850/2025
READ LIVE COVERAGE
READ ORDER
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Prajwal Revanna