DR. SUBRAMANIAM SWAMYversusRAMAKRISHNA HEGDE

                 DR. SUBRAMANIAM SWAMY
                                                                          A
                                  v.
                     RAMAKRISHNA HEGDE

                        OCTOBER 18, 1989

   [K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY AND A.M. AHMADI, JJ.]                            B

       Code of Civil Procedure-Section 25-Transfer of civil proceed-
ings-Supreme Court to be satisfied that it is expedient for the ends of
justice.

      The Respondent had filed a suit for defamation in the Bombay
High Court against the petitioner, claiming Rupees one crore as C
damages for the injury alleged to have been caused to his reputation by
the publication/imputation of certain alleged defamatory statements
made by the petitioner at a Press Conference held al New Delhi on
January 10, 1989. The allegation in the plaint was that the petitioner
levelled several accusations at the said Press Conference which were D
widely circulated/reported in the newspapers of January 11, 1989. In
substance the allegation was that the Respondent and his family
members pocketed more than Rs.300 crores through fraudulent deals in
lands situate in Bangalore and other parts of Karnataka, whereby the
respondent favoured hi.s relatives/friends, besides non-resident Indians.
                                                                          E
       By the instant petition, filed by the petitioner under section 25,
Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioner prays for the transfer of the said
suit pending in Bombay High Court to any Civil Court in Karnataka,
preferably the City Civil Court at Bangalore on the ground of forum
non-convenience. In support of the petition it is urge~ by the petitioner
that: (i) the petitioner's father maintains a family house at Bangalore; F
(ii) that all the events that provide the defence to the litigation took
place in Karnataka at Bangalore; (iii) that the entire documentary
evidence touching the alleged acts being in official files and in private
custody would be easily available in Bangalore, (iv) that most of the
witnesses who are in the know of respondent's wrongs are residents of
Karnataka, more particularly Bangalore; (v) that the discovery and G
inspection of documents can be conveniently had in Bangalore; (vi) that
the evidence relating to telephone tappings done at the behest of the
respondent would be available in Karnataka, and (vii) that the people of
Karnataka State are vitally interested in the outcome of the litigation.
For these reasons, amongst others, the petjtioner prays for the Transfer
of the suit from Bombay to Bangalore.                                      H

                                  469
    470          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [1989] Supp. I S.C.R.

           The respondent while opposing the transfer of the suit contends
A
    that the petitioner having aligned himself with the Ruling Party at the
    Centre was indulging in making intemperate, slanderous and false
    allegations against him with a view to maligning him and advancing the
    political interest of the Ruling Party at the Centre. According to him the
    hearing of the suit has been delayed as the petitioner has not filed his
B   written statement. The respondent further contends that being the
    dominus litis he was entitled to choose the forum.

          Allowing the petition, this Court,

          HELD: The Supreme Court is empowered at any stage to trans-
    fer any suit, appeal or other proceeding from a High Court or other
c   Civil Court in one State to a High Court or other Civil Court of another
    State if it is satisfied that such an Order is expedient for the ends of
    justice. [474H; 47SA]

          The question of expediency would depend on the facts and
D   circumstances of each case bnt the paramount consideration for the
    exercise of power must be to meet the ends of justice. [476C]

           Words of wide amplitude-for the ends of justice-have been
    advisedly used to leave the matter to the discretion of the apex court as
    it is not possible to conceive of all situations requiring or justifying the
E   exercise of power. [47SD I

          If ,the ends of justice so demand, the case may be transferred
    under this provision notwithstanding the right of dominus litus to
    choose the fourm and considerations of plaintiff's convenience, etc.
    cannot eclipse the requirement of justice. Justice must be done at
F   all costs, if necessary by the transfer of the case from one Court to
                                                                                   4
    ;mother. [476D-E]                                                              t

          The ends of justice in the instant case demand that the suit be
    transferred from the Bombay High Court to the City Civil Court,
    Bangalore, where most of the documentary evidence and the majority
G   of witnesses are available. Since the respondent ordinarily resides in
    Bangalore and was the Chief Minister of Karnataka during the period
    the various acts of which he is accused of took place, the impact of the
    accusation would be as much, if not more, on the readers of Bangalore.
    No prejudice, much less substantial prejudice would be caused to the
    respondent ifthe suit is transferred as prayed. [477C & F-G)
H
                     S. SWAMY v. R.K. HEGDE (AHMADI, J.I                 471

-·         Sanjay Gandhi and Anr. v. Rani Jethmalani, [1979] 2 SCR 378 A
 "   and Union of India v. Shrimani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee and
     Ors., [1986] 3 SCR 472, referred to.

         ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Transfer Petition (Civil) No.
     338of 1989.
                                                                               B
          (Under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908).

          ~etitioner-in-person.


         V.M. Tarkunde, P.K. Dey and Ms. Rani Jethmalani for the
     Respondent.
                                                                               c
          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

            AHMADI, J. Dr. Subramaniam Swamy, the defendant in Suit
     No. 945/89 pending on the original side of the Bombay High Court,
     has filed this petition under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, D
     1908 ('The Code' hereafter) read with Order XXXVl-B of· the
     Supreme Court Rules, 1966, praying for the transfer of the aforesaid
     suit from the Bombay High Court to any Civil Court in Kamataka,
     preferably the City Civil Court at Bangalore, on the ground of forum
     non-convenience.
                                                                                E
            The respondent Shri Ramakrishna Hegde has filed the aforesaid
     suit in the Bombay High Court claiming a sum of Rupees one crore by
     way of damages for injury caused to his reputation by the publication/
     imputation of certain alleged defamatory statements made by the
     petitioner at a Press Conference held in New Delhi on January 10,
     1989 which was attended by several members of the Press and media p
     specially invited to the said Confere_nce. The allegation in the plaint is
     that the petfrioner levelled several accusations against the respondent
     at the said Press Conference which were widely circulated/reported in
     the newspapers of January 11, 1989. These allegations have been
     catalogued in clauses (a) to (p) of paragraph 4 of the plaint. It is also
     alleged that the petitioner had also issued a written statement contain- G
     ing allegations set out in clauses (q) to (y) of paragraph 5 of the plaint
     and followed it up by further similar allegations made on January 12,
     1989 and January 27, 1989, all of which are per-se defamatory. We
     need not set out the allegations forming the basis of the suit as they are
     not relevant for the disposal of this petition. Suffice it to say that the
     suit filed by the respondent in the Bombay High Couurt is for damages H
     for injury caused to his reputation.
                                                                                   '•
     472         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [1989) Supp. 1 S.C.R.

          The petitioner is a politician who is serving his fourth term as a      ~:.

A   Member of Parliament and is presently a Member of the Rajya Sabha              ·,
    having been elected to that office on a Janta Party ticket sometime in
    March, 1988. He claims to have served on various Investigative Com-
    mitte of Parliament, to have received his Doctorate from the Harvard
    University in USA where he later taught for almost a decade and to
B   have published more than 150 books, articles and research papers on
    various aspects of Indian policy including economic policy of the
    country. On account of this background, contends the petitioner, he
    was able to understand, analyse and expose the details of the respon-
    dent's various acts of corruption, favouritism and nepotism committed
    during his tenure as Chief Minister of the State of Kamataka, at the
    Press Conference of January 10, 1989. In paragraph 8 of the petition
(
    the petitioner states that he "accepts the publication of the allegations
    complained of by the respondent." It is thus seen that the factum of
    publication of the allegations is not in dispute.

         The petitioner, however, contends that the most appropriate
D place for the trial of the suit filed by the respondent is the State of
   Karnataka where the various acts complained of were committed by
   the respondent from time to time during his tenure as the Chief Minis-
   ter of the State. The grounds in support of the petitioner's contention
   may be summarised as follows: the petitioner's father maintains a
   family house in Bangalore; all the events that provide the defence to
B the litigation took place in Karnataka at Bangalore; the entire
   documentary evidence touching the alleged acts being in official files
   and in private custody would be easily available in Bangalore; most of
   the witnesses who are in know of the respondent's wrongs are residents
   of Karnataka, more particularly Bangalore; the discovery and inspec-
   tion of documents can be conveniently had in Bangalore where they
p are available; the evidence pertaining to telephone tappings done at
   the behest of the respondent would be available in Karnataka, Banga-
   lore and since the people of Kamataka are vitally interested in the
   outcome of this litigation, it is essential that the suit should be tried in
   Karnataka and not in Bombay. It is further alleged that if the respon-
   dent is keen on vindicating his honour he should have no objection to
q the transfer of the suit to a Civil Court in Kamataka where the suit can
    be disposed of more expeditiously than Bombay where the Court
   calendars are clogged because of heavy backlog and a similar suit filed
    by Shri A.R. Antulay, the Ex-Chief Minister of Maharashtra in 1982
    has still not reached hearing. According to him, having regard to the
    nature of the respoondent's suit, it is doubtful if the Bombay High
 M Court would permit it to jump its place in the queue. It is lastly alleged
                S. SWAMY v. R.K. HEGDE [AHMADI, J.]                  473

that since the respondent is admittedly a resident of Bangalore and
                                                                            A
usually divides his time largely between Delhi and Bangalore he
should have no objection to the trial of the suit in the State of
Kamataka. On the other hand if the suit is not transferred as prayed
the petitioner will be considerably handicapped in his defence as both
oral and documentary evidence will not be easily available. The
petitioner, therefore, contends that-it is necessary to order transfer of   B
the case to meet the ends of justice.

       The respondent has filed his counter opposing the petition. He
contends that the petitioner having aligned himself with the ruling
party at the Centre is indulging in making intemperate, slanderous
and false allegations against him with a view to maligning l)im and
advancing the political interest of the ruling party at the Centre.         c
According to him the suit in the Bombay High Court is delayed as the
petitioner has failed to file his written statement to the suit. After he
files the written statement, a summons for directions can be taken out
and a request to expedite the suit can be made to the High Court; if the
petitioner is sincere in his profession, he should join the respondent in   D
requesting the High Court for an early hearing of the suit. He further
states that this Court can also direct the Bombay High Court to hear
and dispose of the suit within a period of six months from the date of
the order. According to the respondent it is not necessary to transfer
the suit from the Bombay High Court to a Court in Karnataka merely
on the ground that the latter court will be able to dispose of the suit     E
more expeditiously having regard to comparatively less pressure of
work. As regards the allegation that the petitioner's father maintains a
family house in the State of Karnataka, the respondent contends that
the petitioner nonnally makes frequent visits to Bombay where his
in-laws have a comfortable home at Nepean Sea Road, Bombay. The
respondent further contends that being the dominus litis he was             F
entitled to choose the forum and no valid grounds have been made out
in the petition for the transfer of the suit. The respondent, therefore,
prays tharthe petition should be dismissed with costs.

      The petitioner has filed his rejoinder to the respondent's
counter. He contends that the respondent has not made a serious             G
attempt to counter the grounds on which the transfer petition is
founded. He denies the allegation that he was aligned himself with the
ruling party at the Centre and is del.iberately making intemperate,
slanderous and false accusations against the respondent with a view to
advancing the political interest of the said party. On the question of
delay in filing the written statement to the suit he contends that he       H
    474         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                {1989] Supp. 1 S.C.R.

  received the summons on April 7, 1989 requiring him to appear before           '
A the Judge in Chambers on July 25, 1989. He states that on enquiry he
  discovered that there was a long queue of matters listed for directions
  on that date and he was told that his matter was not likely to reach
  even for preliminary directions in the current year. He states that his
  written statement is ready but he has not filed it as his suit is not listed
B for directions. He has denied the allegation that his visits to Bomb~y
  are more frequent that his visits to Bangalore. While admitting the fact
  that he has a place to stay in Bombay he emphasises that his home is in
  Delhi and his father's home is in Bangalore and since the events in
  question had taken place in Bangalore, he considers the Karnataka
  Courts to be the natural and proper forum for the trial of the suit.
  According to him while the resP.ondent had made the choice of forum
C by instituting the suit at Bombay, Section 25 of the Code empowers
  this Court to transfer the suit to Karnataka to meet the ends of justice.
  He, therefore, contends that this Court should exercise its discretion in
  the interest of justice and transfer the case to Karnataka where the
  events complained of had taken place, where the documentary
D evidence is available in public records and where the witnesses of the
  alleged transactions ordinarily reside.

          The present Section 25 of the Code was inserted by Section 11 of
    the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976. The relevant
    part of the Section with which we are concerned reads as under:
E
                "25(1) On the application of a party and after notice to the
                parties and after hearing such of them as desire to be
                heard, the Supreme Court may, at any stage, if satisfied
                that an order under this section is expedient for the ends of
                justice, direct that any suit, appeal or other proceeding be
F               transferred from a High Court or other Civil Court in one
                State to a High Court or other Civil Court in any other
                State."

         Under the old section the State Government was empowered to
   transfer a suit, appeal or other proceeding pending in the High Court
G of that State to any other High Court on receipt of a report from the
   Judge trying or hearing the suit that there existed reasonable grounds
   for such transfer provided the State Government of the State in which
   the other High Court had its principal seat consented to the transfer.
   The present Section 25 confers the power of transfer on the Supreme
 ' Court and is of wide amplitude. Under the present provision the
H Supreme Court is empowered at any stage to transfer any suit, appeal or
                 S. SWAMY v. R.K. HEGDE [AHMADI, J.J                   475

other proceeding from a High Court or other Civil Court in one ·State
to a High Court or other Civil Court of another State if it is satisfied
                                                                              A
that such an order is expedient for the ends of justice. The cardinal
principle for the exercise of power under this section is that the ends of
justice demand the transfer of the suit, appeal or other proteeding.
The question of expediency would depend on the facts and circum-
stances of each case but the paramount cons;deration for the exercise of      B
power must be to meet the ends of justice. It is true that if more than
one court has jurisdiction under the Code to try the suit, the plaintiff
as dominus litis has a right to choose the Court and the defendant
cannot demand that the suit be tried in any particular court convenient
to him. The mere convenience of the parties or any one of them may
not be enough for the exercise of power but It· must also be shown that
trial in the chosen forum will result in denial of justice. Cases are not     c
unknown where a party seeking justice chooses a forum most incon-
venient to the adversary with a view to depriving that .party of a fair
trial. The Parliament has, ther.<;fore, invested this Co!!rt wlth the dis-
cretion to transfer the case from one Court to another if that is con-
sidered expedient to meet the ends of justice. Words of wide                  D
amplitude-for the ends of justice-have been advisedly used to leave
the matter to the discretion of the apex court as it is not possible to
conceive of all situations requiring or justifying the exercise of power.
But the paramount consideration must be to see that justice according
to law is done; if for achieving that objective the transfer of the case is
imperative, there should be no hesitation to transfer the case even if it     E
is likely to cause some inconvenience to the plaintiff. The petitioner's
plea for ihe transfer of the case must be tested on this touch-stone.

      The learned counsel for the respondent invited our attention to
the observations of this Court in Maneka San jay Gandhi & Anr. v.
Rani Jethmalani, [ 1979) 2 SCR 378. In that case the petitioner figured       F
as an accused in the prosecution launched against her and another by
the respondent for an offence of defamation in the Court of Metropoli-
tan Magistrate, Bombay. This Court was approached for the transfer
of the Criminal Case from Bombay to Delhi. While declining the
request for transfer this Court observed as under:
                                                                              G
            "Assurance of a fair trial is the first imperative of dispensa-
            tion of justice and the central criterion for the Court to
            consider when a motion for transfer is made is not the
            hypersensitivity or relative convenienc of a party or easy
            availability of legal services or like mini-grievances. Some-
            thing more substantial, more compelling, more imperilling,        H
    476         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [1989] Supp. 1 S.C.R.

               from the point of view of public justice and its attendant
               environment, is necessitous if the Court is to exercise its
               power to transfer. This is the cardinal principle although
               the circumstances may be myriad and vary from case to
               case. We have to test the petitioner's grounds on this touch-
               stone bearing in mind the rule that normally the complain-
B              ant has the right to choose any court having jurisdiction
               and the accused cannot dictate where the case against him
               should be tried. Even so, the process of justice should not
               harass the parties and from that angle the court may weigh
               the circumstances."

           Counsel for the respondent pointed out that mere convenience
c   of the petitioner and absence of likelihood of prejudice to the respon-
    dent should not weigh with the court in directing the transfer of the
    suit from the Bombay High Court to a Civil Court in Kamataka. We
    have already emphasised that the paramount consideration for trans-
    fer of the case under Section 25 of the Code must be the requirement
D   of justice. If the ends of justice so demand, the case may be transferred
    under this provision notwithstanding the right of dominu6 litis to
    choose the forum and considerations of plaintiffs convenience, etc.,
    cannot eclipse the requirement of justice. Justice must be done at all
    costs, if necessary by the transfer of the case from one Court to
    another. That is why in Union of India v. Shiromani Gurudwara
E   Parbandhak Committee & Ors., [1986] 3 SCR 472 this Court while
    sounding a note of caution that the power must be exercised with
    circumspection observed that the court should not hesitate to act if the
    ends of justice·so demand in an appropriate case.

          In the light of the principle enunciated above, we may now con-
F   sider the case before us. On a bare perusal of the allegations set out in
    clauses (a) to (p) of paragraph 4 and clauses (q) to (y) of paragraph 5
    of the plaint, which form the basis of the suit, it is evident that the
    charges of corruption, favouritism and nepotism levelled against the
    respondent mainly concern the allotment of lands situate in Bangalore
    and other parts of Kamataka at throw away prices to his close relatives
G   and favoured few besides non-resident Indians. In substance the alle-
    gation is that the respondent and his family members pocketed more
    than Rs.300 crores through fraudulent deals in lands situate in Banga-
    lore and other parts of Kamataka. There can, therefore, be no doubt
    that most of the oral as .'«'ell as the documentary evidence regarding the
    alleged scandalous deals would be available in Kamataka, more
H   particularly in Bangalore, and not at Bombay. If the trial proceeds at
                S. SWAMY v. R.K. HEGDE [AHMADI, J.]                 4T!

 Bombay, voluminous evidence will have to be carried to Bombay and A
 several witnesses may have to travel to Bombay to give evidence.
 Apart from the inconvenience likely to be caused to the witnesses, the
 pettioner would also be required to incur substantial travel expenses to
 secure the presence of the witnesses in view of Order XVI Rule 19 of
 the (:ode. And yet, witnesses may be reluctant to travel the long
 distan~ to Bombay. Cosiderable difficulty may also be experienced in      B
 securing discovery and inspection of documents. As the petitioner
 does not deny the publication of the allegations complained of in the
.plaint, the burden of establishing his defence to the suit will be on him
 and he may be required to examine a number of witnesses to discharge
 the same. We have, therefore, no donbt that the petitioner would be
 handicapped in his defence to the suit if the suit is tried in Bombay. C
 The ends of justice, therefore, demand that the suit be transferred
 from the Bombay High Court to the City Civil Court, Bangalore,
 where most of the documentary evidence and the majority of the
 witnesses are available.

      The respondent in paragraph 20 of the plaint states that since D
"the impugned allegations have been published throughout the nation,
including Bombay", the Bombay High Court has jurisdiction tq enter-
tain and try the suit. The jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court is,
thetefore, invoked solely on the ground of publication of the
impugned allegations. It is not the respondent's case that these allega-
lions had not been published in Kamataka State or in Bangalore where E
the respondent ordinarily resides. This also becomes clear from his
 address given in the cause title of his plaint.

      It is not suggested by the respondent in his counter rior was it
contended by his counsel that the transfer of the suit will result in
substantial prejudice to the respondent. Since the respondent ordina- F
rily resides in Bangalore and was the Chief Minister of Karnataka
durittg the period the various acts of which he is accused took place,
the impact of the accusations would be as much if not more on the
readers of Bangalore. There would, therefore, be no dearth of readers
in'B)mgalorewho may have read the offending matters. We are, there-
fore, of the opinion that no prejudice, much less substantial prejudice, G
would be causedto the respondent if the stiit is transferred as prayed.

      It must however be mentioned that the learned counsel for the
respomfent·argueil !fiat the ·petitioner is seeking transfer of the suit to
Bangalore so that he may be able to flJrther defame the respondent. In
this connection he laid stress on the a:verments in the petition that the H
    478         SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [1989] Supp. 1 S.C.R.

A   suit should be tried in Bangalore as the people of Karnataka are vitally
    concerned in the outcome of the litigation. It cannot be denied that the
    people of that State are indeed vitally interested in the litigation
    besides the parties themselves but we do not think the petitioner's
    request can be spurned on that ground. Besides in these days of
    prompt publicity, the apprehension of the learned counsel in this regard
B   appears to be misplaced. We, therefore, do not see any merit in this
    contention.

          In the result the petition succeeds. Suit No. 945 of 1989 (Rama
    Krishna Hegde v. Dr. Subramaniam Swamy) pending on the original
    side of the Bombay High Court is hereby transferred to the City Civil
(   Court, Bangalore for trial and disposal in accordance with law from
    the stage at which it is presently pending. The Bombay High Court will
    transmit the record of the suit to the City Civil Court, Bangalore
    within four weeks from the receipt of the order of this Court. Parties
    will bear their own costs.

D   Y. Lal                                                Petition allowed.