A practitioner’s guide to the law and jurisprudence governing the transfer of cases under Article 139A, Section 25 CPC, and Section 446 BNSS – written from an Advocate-on-Record’s perspective.
1. What Is a Transfer Petition in the Supreme Court?
A transfer petition in the Supreme Court is the legal remedy through which a party requests the Supreme court to move a pending case from one state to another. In my practice as an Advocate-on-Record, transfer petitions constitute one of the most frequently filed categories of cases in the Supreme Court – and yet they are among the most commonly misunderstood. Far from being a routine administrative request, a transfer petition in Supreme Court invokes an extraordinary constitutional and statutory power rooted in the assurance of a fair trial.
The transfer jurisdiction arises from three distinct sources: Article 139A of the Constitution of India for cases involving substantial questions of law, Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for civil matters, and Section 446 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) – formerly Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — for criminal matters.[1]
In essence, the transfer petition exists so that no litigant is denied justice simply because of where a case happens to be pending. However, the Supreme Court has consistently emphasised that the power is not to be exercised as a matter of course but to meet the ends of justice.
For readers exploring the Supreme Court’s extraordinary jurisdictions, my detailed article on the Curative Petition in the Supreme Court provides a useful parallel to the transfer jurisdiction exercised under Article 139A.
2. Legal Framework: Three Sources of Transfer Jurisdiction
Before filing a transfer petition in Supreme Court, it is essential to identify which provision applies to your case. The three jurisdictional sources operate in distinct spheres.
2.1 Article 139A of the Constitution
Article 139A empowers the Supreme Court in two situations. Under clause (1), when cases involving the same or substantially the same questions of law are pending before the Supreme Court and one or more High Courts, the Court may withdraw them and decide all cases itself. Under clause (2), the Court may transfer any case, appeal, or proceeding from one High Court to another.[2]
For instance, in 2024, the Supreme Court used this power to consolidate all petitions challenging the IT Rules, 2021, pending across multiple High Courts, and transferred them to the Delhi High Court for unified hearing.[3]
The constitutional dimensions of Supreme Court jurisdiction are further analysed in my article on Special Leave Petition — Law and Practice, which complements the discussion on transfer petitions under Article 139A.
2.2 Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 25 CPC governs the transfer of civil cases between states. It empowers the Supreme Court to transfer any suit, appeal, or proceeding from a High Court or civil court in one state to a High Court or civil court in any other state. Importantly, Section 25(5) provides that the applicable law after transfer remains the law that the original court ought to have applied – meaning that transfer changes the venue but not the substantive law.[4]
2.3 Section 446 BNSS (formerly Section 406 CrPC)
For criminal cases, Section 446 BNSS grants the Supreme Court power to transfer any criminal case or appeal from one state to another, if the Court considers it “expedient for the ends of justice.” The transition from Section 406 CrPC to Section 446 BNSS reflects continuity of the provision, not a change in its scope.[5]
A similar statutory framework governs the filing of Special Leave Petitions, and practitioners may refer to my guide on How to Draft an SLP under Article 136 for a structured understanding of Supreme Court practice.
Supreme Court vs High Court Transfer
The Supreme Court’s transfer jurisdiction applies only to inter-state transfers i.e. cases moving from one state to another. For transfers within the same state, the appropriate forum is the concerned High Court under Section 24 CPC (civil) or Section 447 BNSS (criminal).[6]
3. Grounds for Filing a Transfer Petition in Supreme Court
The Supreme Court does not allow a transfer petition merely because one party finds the current forum inconvenient. Through decades of jurisprudence, the Court has crystallised specific grounds for filing transfer petition that justify the exercise of this power. I have tried to enumerate some of them here.
Apprehension of bias or unfair trial is the most commonly invoked ground. In Abdul Nazar Madani v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2000) 6 SCC 204, the Court held that this apprehension must be “reasonable” and based on material facts — not vague or imaginary fears.[7]
Threat to life or safety of the accused, complainant, or witnesses is another well-recognised ground. Where a party’s physical safety is genuinely at risk, the Court has consistently transferred cases to a neutral venue. Reference can be drawn to the infamous Unnao rape cases.
Hostile local atmosphere may warrant transfer when the nature of the case generates an environment where local sentiment could prejudice proceedings. This ground is frequently invoked in politically sensitive or communally charged cases.
Convenience of parties in matrimonial disputes constitutes the single largest category of transfer petitions in the Supreme Court. Courts are particularly sympathetic to wives who cannot travel to distant states where husbands have filed proceedings. In the recent 2025 decision in Rohit Kapoor v. Ketaki Malhotra, the Court transferred a matrimonial case from Bhiwadi, Rajasthan, to Gurugram, Haryana, after considering the location of both parties and the pendency of a connected case.[8]
For a detailed analysis of how the Supreme Court approaches inter-state matrimonial transfers, readers may refer to my article on the transfer of matrimonial cases from one state to another, which examines the Court’s consistent reliance on convenience, safety, and fairness while deciding such petitions.
Consolidation of related proceedings under Article 139A(1) prevents conflicting judgments when the same question of law arises across multiple High Courts.
4. When Will the Supreme Court Refuse a Transfer Petition?
Equally important for practitioners is understanding when transfer petitions fail. The Court refuses transfer in the following situations.
Mere inconvenience is not enough. In the landmark 2025 judgment of Shri Sendhur Agro & Oil Industries v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., 2025 INSC 328, Justices Pardiwala and Mahadevan held that inconvenience, language barriers, and the pendency of related proceedings elsewhere do not constitute valid grounds. The expression “expedient for the ends of justice” requires a showing of substantial, not speculative, risk to fairness. The Court further noted that the availability of virtual hearing facilities diminishes the inconvenience argument significantly.[9]
Political enmity alone does not justify transfer. In Captain Amarinder Singh v. Prakash Singh Badal, (2009) 6 SCC 260, the Court refused to transfer a criminal case merely because the parties were political rivals, holding that without material demonstrating actual interference with the judicial process, political enmity is insufficient.[10]
Advanced stage of trial weighs against transfer. If the trial has progressed substantially, the Court is reluctant to disrupt proceedings unless compelling circumstances arose after the trial began.
Forum shopping is treated with censure. If the Court perceives that a transfer petition is a tactical manoeuvre to reach a more favourable jurisdiction, dismissal with costs is a real possibility. As one Supreme Court bench observed, the transfer of trial from one state to another “inevitably reflects on the credibility of the State’s judiciary,” and must therefore be ordered only for compelling reasons.[11]
5. Landmark Case Laws on Transfer Petitions
5.1 Maneka Sanjay Gandhi v. Rani Jethmalani (1979)
This remains the foundational authority on the transfer of criminal cases. Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer laid down that the “first imperative” and “central criterion” for any transfer must be the assurance of a fair trial. Mere convenience or easy availability of legal services does not suffice — there must be a substantial reason grounded in “public justice.” The Court also cautioned that the safety of the accused or complainant is an essential condition for participation in a trial.[12]
5.2 Dr. Subramaniam Swamy v. Radhakrishna Hegde (1990)
The Court held that the “paramount consideration” for transfer under Section 25 CPC is the “reasonable apprehension in the mind of the party that he may not get justice.” A mere allegation of bias, without material support, will not be entertained. This judgment established clearly that the burden of proof lies on the petitioner seeking transfer.[13]
5.3 K. Anbazhagan v. Superintendent of Police (2004)
This judgment laid down the five-point framework that courts continue to apply in every transfer petition in Supreme Court involving criminal cases: (i) apprehension of bias; (ii) influence of a powerful party on witnesses; (iii) comparative hardship to parties; (iv) a surcharged local atmosphere; and (v) evidence of hostility likely to interfere with the course of justice.[14]
5.4 Shri Sendhur Agro v. Kotak Mahindra Bank (2025)
In this recent decision, the Court dismissed a transfer petition in a cheque dishonour case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, holding that lack of territorial jurisdiction is not a ground for transfer – the remedy for jurisdictional challenges lies in a quashing petition, not transfer. The Court also reiterated that the invocation of power “presupposes the existence of jurisdiction” in the court from which transfer is sought.[15]
5.5 Rinku Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda (2024)
In this matrimonial transfer petition Rinku Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda , the Supreme Court under its jurisdiction under Section 25 CPC to transfer a divorce case from Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, used its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to dissolve the marriage by mutual consent and also quashed the criminal cases between the parties. This decision illustrates how transfer petitions can sometimes become vehicles for the Court to exercise its broader constitutional jurisdiction to do complete justice.[16]
6. How to File a Transfer Petition in Supreme Court
The procedural requirements are governed by Orders XL and XLI of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. The petition must be filed through an Advocate-on-Record and must contain a clear statement of facts, the name and location of the court where the case is pending, the court to which transfer is sought, and specific grounds – all supported by a duly sworn affidavit as per supreme court rules.[17]
There is no specific limitation period for filing. However, from practical experience, I would strongly advise filing as early as possible. Approaching the Court for transfer after the trial has substantially progressed will weaken the petition considerably.
Upon filing, the Court may either dismiss the petition at the threshold or issue notice to the opposite party with at least four weeks to respond. Generally initial hearing for notice and interim relief transfer matters are heard by a single judge. In appropriate cases, the Court may also stay the trial proceedings pending disposal of the transfer petition.[18]
7. Practical Drafting Tips for a Transfer Petition
First, identify the correct statutory provision. As in for civil inter-state transfers, invoke Section 25 CPC. However, for criminal matters, invoke Section 446 BNSS. And to get transferred a constitutional questions pending across High Courts, invoke Article 139A.
Second, lead with concrete evidence. Attach newspaper reports, threat letters, FIR copies, or any material substantiating the ground for transfer. An unsupported affidavit rarely survives the threshold scrutiny.
Third, address balance of convenience honestly. If you are seeking transfer of a matrimonial case, acknowledge the respondent’s circumstances and propose a forum that minimises hardship to all.
Fourth, avoid vague allegations of bias. The K. Anbazhagan five-point framework should guide the structure of your grounds — address each factor with specificity.
Fifth, file early. A transfer petition filed on the eve of judgment or at an advanced stage of trial invites suspicion of delay tactics and is almost invariably dismissed.
For a foundational overview of transfer jurisdiction and practical filing considerations, readers may refer to my earlier article on the transfer petition in the Supreme Court.
8. Frequently Asked Questions on Transfer Petitions
Q1. Can I file a transfer petition directly in the Supreme Court?
Only for inter-state transfers – when you seek to move a case from a court in one state to a court in another state. For transfers within the same state, the High Court is the appropriate forum.[19]
Q2. Is mere inconvenience a valid ground for a transfer petition in Supreme Court?
No. The Supreme Court has consistently held, most recently in Shri Sendhur Agro (2025), that mere inconvenience or difficulty in travelling is not a sufficient ground. There must be a substantial risk to a fair trial.[20]
Q3. Can the Supreme Court transfer a case to itself?
Yes. Under Article 139A(1), where cases involving the same substantial question of law are pending across multiple High Courts, the Supreme Court may withdraw all cases and decide them itself.[21]
Q4. What is the most common type of transfer petition?
Matrimonial transfer petitions are by far the largest category. Wives frequently seek transfer of divorce or maintenance proceedings from a distant state to a court nearer to their residence.
Q5. What happens to the applicable law after transfer?
The law applicable to the case remains unchanged. Under Section 25(5) CPC, the transferee court applies the same law that the original court ought to have applied. Transfer changes the venue, not the substantive law.[22]
Q6. Can costs be imposed if a transfer petition is frivolous?
Yes. Both Section 25(4) CPC and Section 446 BNSS empower the Court to impose costs on the applicant if the petition is found to be frivolous or vexatious.[23]
9. Conclusion
The transfer petition in the Supreme Court of India is a powerful but carefully circumscribed remedy. It exists to safeguard the fundamental right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution, not to serve as a tool for convenience or forum shopping.
As the jurisprudence from Maneka Gandhi (1979) through K. Anbazhagan (2004) to Shri Sendhur Agro (2025) demonstrates, the Court will exercise its transfer power only when the ends of justice genuinely demand it. For the practitioner, the discipline lies in honest assessment: is there a real, material, demonstrable threat to fairness? If so, a well-drafted transfer petition supported by concrete evidence stands an excellent chance. If not, the remedy lies elsewhere — and the Court will not hesitate to say so, with costs.
Endnotes
- Article 139A, Constitution of India; Section 25, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 446, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Section 406, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973); Orders XL & XLI, Supreme Court Rules, 2013. ↑
- Article 139A(1) and (2), Constitution of India. ↑
- Supreme Court order dated 22nd March 2024, transferring all petitions challenging the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 to the Delhi High Court. ↑
- Section 25(1)–(5), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. ↑
- M/s Shri Sendhur Agro & Oil Industries v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., 2025 INSC 328, observing the transition from Section 406 CrPC to Section 446 BNSS “reflects continuity rather than change.” ↑
- Section 24, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (intra-state civil transfers by High Court); Section 447, BNSS, 2023 (intra-state criminal transfers by High Court). ↑
- Abdul Nazar Madani v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2000) 6 SCC 204. ↑
- Rohit Kapoor v. Ketaki Malhotra, Transfer Petition (C) Nos. 2674–2675 of 2025, decided 19th December 2025, Per Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ. ↑
- M/s Shri Sendhur Agro & Oil Industries v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., 2025 INSC 328, decided 6th March 2025, Per Pardiwala and Mahadevan, JJ. ↑
- Captain Amarinder Singh v. Prakash Singh Badal, (2009) 6 SCC 260. ↑
- See the consistent observations by the Supreme Court that transfer of trial between states reflects on the credibility of the state judiciary and should be ordered only for compelling reasons: Maneka Sanjay Gandhi (1979), supra note 12; K. Anbazhagan (2004), supra note 14. ↑
- Maneka Sanjay Gandhi v. Rani Jethmalani, (1979) 1 SCC 4, Per Krishna Iyer, J. ↑
- Dr. Subramaniam Swamy v. Radhakrishna Hegde, (1990) 1 SCC 4. ↑
- K. Anbazhagan v. Superintendent of Police, (2004) 3 SCC 767. ↑
- M/s Shri Sendhur Agro (2025), supra note 9. ↑
- Rinku Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda, 2024 INSC 1014, decided 19th December 2024. ↑
- Orders XL and XLI, Supreme Court Rules, 2013. ↑
- Order XLI, Rule 2, Supreme Court Rules, 2013. ↑
- Section 24, CPC, 1908; Section 447, BNSS, 2023. ↑
- M/s Shri Sendhur Agro (2025), supra note 9. ↑
- Article 139A(1), Constitution of India. ↑
- Section 25(5), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. ↑
- Section 25(4), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 446, BNSS, 2023. ↑