Aashima v. State of Punjab & Another, 2025
The Bench struck a balance between fairness and practicality, ensuring that justice is seen to be done without unnecessarily impugning the State judiciary’s integrity.
Judgement Details
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date of Decision
29 October 2025
Judges
Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Facts of the Case
-
The case arose from a hit-and-run incident in February 2025 in which the petitioner’s husband died.
-
The accused is a probationary Judicial Magistrate posted in Hoshiarpur, Punjab.
-
The trial was pending before the Judicial Magistrate at Phagwara and had reached the stage of framing of charges.
-
The petitioner (victim’s wife) filed a transfer petition before the Supreme Court, alleging apprehension of bias and lack of fair trial in Punjab due to the accused’s position in the State judiciary.
-
Alongside, she sought transfer of investigation from Punjab Police to the CBI and transfer of a connected Motor Accident Claim case filed in Kullu, Himachal Pradesh to Delhi.
Issues
-
Whether the trial in a case involving a sitting judicial officer as accused should be transferred out of Punjab to ensure impartiality and fairness?
-
Whether the investigation in the case should also be entrusted to the CBI instead of the Punjab Police?
-
Whether the Motor Accident Compensation Claim case arising from the same incident should also be transferred to Delhi for convenience and uniform adjudication?
Held
-
The trial in the hit-and-run case is transferred from Phagwara (Punjab) to Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini Courts, Delhi.
-
The investigation remains with Punjab Police, subject to the transferee court’s authority to direct further investigation by Delhi Police, if required.
-
The Motor Accident Claim case arising out of the same incident is also transferred to Delhi.
-
The Supreme Court’s interim stay on proceedings before the Phagwara court stands vacated upon transfer.
-
The accused’s personal appearance may be dispensed with except when specifically required.
Analysis
-
The decision demonstrates the Supreme Court’s sensitivity to perceptions of bias, particularly when the accused is a member of the judicial service.
-
The Bench struck a balance between fairness and practicality, ensuring that justice is seen to be done without unnecessarily impugning the State judiciary’s integrity.
-
The Court’s approach aligns with prior precedents emphasizing public confidence in judicial impartiality as the cornerstone of fair trial rights.
-
The judgment also illustrates the Court’s flexibility in transfer petitions, tailoring remedies such as partial transfer (trial only) and conditional directions for further investigation to the facts of each case.
-
By consolidating the criminal trial and motor accident claim in one jurisdiction, the Court ensured judicial economy and consistency.
-
The order reflects a measured exercise of power under Section 406 CrPC, maintaining both the dignity of the judiciary and the confidence of the victim’s family.