Justice Must Be Seen To Be Done, Not Stifled by Local Hostilities: Punjab & Haryana High Court Transfers Trial from Amritsar as Lawyers Reluctant to Appear Against Fellow Advocates

“Denial of Legal Assistance Is Denial of Fair Trial”: In a significant judgment Punjab and Haryana High Court emphatically reinforced the principle that the right to a fair trial includes the right to effective legal representation without fear or coercion. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar ordered the transfer of a criminal trial from Amritsar to Hoshiarpur after the complainant, Daljit Singh, complained of being unable to engage legal counsel due to the accused being practicing advocates in the same district.

“Denial of legal representation owing to local hostility is a denial of fair trial,” the Court observed, highlighting that any environment which deprives a litigant of effective legal recourse goes to the root of justice itself.

The case stemmed from an FIR registered in 2018 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the IPC. The complainant accused the respondents, including practicing lawyers, of forging a will to usurp ancestral property. He sought transfer of trial under Section 447 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), citing local prejudice and the legal community’s unwillingness to represent him.

The Court found substance in the complaint, noting that an official police inquiry revealed local advocates’ reluctance to represent the petitioner, though formal statements were avoided by the Bar. Justice Brar succinctly summarized the core issue:
“The petitioner is facing genuine difficulty in securing legal representation in District Amritsar, owing to the fact that respondents are practicing as Advocates in the same district where the trial is pending.”

The Court heavily relied on established precedents. Citing Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, (2004) 4 SCC 158, Justice Brar echoed:
“Denial of a fair trial is as much injustice to the accused as it is to the victim and the society. Fair trial obviously would mean a trial before an impartial Judge, a fair prosecutor and atmosphere of judicial calm.”

Further, quoting Maneka Gandhi v. Rani Jethmalani, (1979) 4 SCC 167, the Court reiterated:
“If an accused person, for any particular reason, is virtually deprived of this facility, an essential aid to fair trial fails.”

The Court was also guided by K. Anbazhagan v. Superintendent of Police, (2004) 3 SCC 767, which held that free and fair trial is a sine qua non of Article 21 of the Constitution and emphasized:
“It is important to note that in such a case the question is not whether the petitioner is actually biased but whether the circumstances are such that there is a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner.”

Dismissing the objection from the accused, who argued inconvenience of attending trial in another district, the Court concluded that the petitioner’s constitutional right to a fair trial far outweighed mere inconvenience.

Justice Brar observed,
“When the very foundation of justice is compromised through denial of effective legal representation, the only course available to the Court is to transfer the trial to a neutral location.”

Accordingly, the High Court directed the transfer of both the criminal trial and related bail cancellation proceedings from Amritsar to Hoshiarpur. The Sessions Judge, Amritsar was instructed to send the complete record to Hoshiarpur within four weeks, where the Sessions Judge would assign it to a court of competent jurisdiction. The parties were directed to appear in Hoshiarpur accordingly.

Importantly, the Court clarified,
“Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as expression of an opinion on the merits of the case.”

Through this ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has reaffirmed the bedrock of criminal justice: the assurance of a fair, unbiased trial where the right to counsel cannot be compromised by local pressures or professional solidarity.

Date of Decision: 2nd July 2025