SC reserves verdict in Mukhtar Ansari case

The Supreme Court has reserved its decision on the application of the UP government to transfer Mukhtar Ansari from a jail in Punjab to Uttar Pradesh. The UP government had sought his custody as there are cases pending against him in the state.

New Delhi:The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its judgement on a case pertaining to the transfer of lawmaker Mukhtar Ansari from Punjab jail to Uttar Pradesh as he is accused of some of the heinous crimes and was allegedly transferred to Punjab from Uttar Pradesh illegally.

It is pertinent to be mentioned here that Ansari had earlier asked the court to transfer his cases to Delhi because his life is in danger in Uttar Pradesh.

Uttar Pradesh government had sought his custody as there are cases pending against him and he was transferred to Punjab without any judicial order. The UP government also alleged that Punjab is in collusion with Ansari and has been ignoring his illegal activities.

Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave, appearing for Punjab, submitted before the court today that Punjab is still in the investigation stage and the case cannot be transferred when the probe is on.

Cases in UP have been pending for the last 5 years and the case in Punjab was registered in 2018, submitted Dave. Arguing further, he took a dig at UP for blaming Punjab and making an accusation against it. He said that there is sufficient evidence available in favour of Punjab's decision and they expect UP to respect Punjab like Punjab respects UP.

UP had moved the court under Article 32 under which an aggrieved moves directly to the top court in case of violation of his/her fundamental rights. Punjab government and Mukhtar Ansari, both opposed UP for moving under Article 32.

Dave argued that for any state to come against another state and say that my rights need to be enforced will completely turn the scheme upside down.

"Filing a plea under Article 32 by the state would completely disrupt the system. The state is seeking for the court to disobey the constitution and entertain this," argued Dave.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi also argued that a state can not move under Article 32 and transfer of cases take place only in grave matters like Gujarat riots when cases were transferred to Maharashtra as there is a surety that justice can not be done to the accused.

"I am appearing in all courts and there is no complaint against that. There is no doubt that if I am brought to UP, I will be done away with. There are threats to my life. I am a five-time MP. This is why I moved the second transfer," argued Rohatgi.

Solicitor General, Tushar Mehta, countered both of them on state moving under Article 32 and said that he agrees that the state doesn't have a fundamental right but a state represents citizens and victims and can seek justice on their behalf.

Further, the SG argued that a convict can not cite threat to his life and oppose transfer while living happily in another state.

"If a video conference is that favourable then even Vijay Mallya would not be extradited and he can just appear from the UK," said SG.

SG concluded by saying that once Ansari is transferred he can approach different courts.