Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from two writ petitions filed by accused in corruption cases investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation, challenging Government Resolutions dated 16 April 2025 and 25 April 2025 that transferred their trials from the Special Court at Kolhapur to a newly constituted Special Court at Pune. The petitioners contended that the State Government lacked the power to order such transfer, arguing that the power to transfer cases vested exclusively in the High Court under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 447 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). They further submitted that the impugned resolutions were issued at the behest of the CBI, effectively granting a litigant undue advantage, and that the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were not so serious as to warrant the transfer, which would cause financial hardship to the accused. The respondents, led by the CBI and the State of Maharashtra, defended the resolutions by pointing to Section 205 of the BNSS (Section 185 of the old CrPC), which empowers the State Government to direct that any case or class of cases committed for trial in any district may be tried in any sessions division. They highlighted that the provision contains a non-obstante clause and that the only limitation is that such direction must not be repugnant to any previous direction of the High Court or Supreme Court. The respondents emphasized that the Administrative Committee of the Bombay High Court had recommended the creation of a dedicated CBI court at Pune and the transfer of cases to ensure expeditious trial, as the Kolhapur court was overburdened. The court examined the statutory scheme, reproducing the text of Sections 197, 198 and 205 of BNSS and Sections 3 and 4(1) of the PC Act. It found that the State Government had clearly exercised its power under Section 205 BNSS and that the petitioners had not pointed to any existing direction of the High Court or Supreme Court with which the government’s action would be repugnant. The court rejected the argument that offences under the PC Act are less serious, observing that corruption erodes the socio-economic fabric and that delay in trial defeats the object of the Act. It also held that the mere fact that the request originated from the CBI did not vitiate the decision, as the government had applied its mind and the High Court’s Administrative Committee had also recommended the measure. Both writ petitions were accordingly dismissed, and the rule was discharged. The court’s decision affirms the wide scope of the State Government’s power under Section 205 BNSS, provided it is exercised in consultation with the High Court and is not contrary to any superior court’s directions.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure – Transfer of Cases – State Government’s Power under Section 205 BNSS – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 205 – The State Government may direct that any case or class of cases committed for trial in any district may be tried in any sessions division, subject to the proviso that such direction is not repugnant to any previous direction of the High Court or Supreme Court. The provision contains a non-obstante clause and overrides other jurisdictional provisions. The government’s decision to transfer all CBI cases from Kolhapur to a Special Court at Pune was within its statutory power and not repugnant to any known directions. Held, the impugned Government Resolutions were valid and the petition was dismissed. (Paras 14-16, 20-22)
B) Prevention of Corruption – Special Courts – Exclusive Jurisdiction – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sections 3, 4(1) – Offences under the PC Act must be tried exclusively by Special Judges appointed under the Act. The seriousness of corruption offences, which erode the social and economic fabric, justifies expeditious trial and transfer to specialized courts; the argument that such offences are less serious was rejected. Held, transfer for speedy trial is in public interest and constitutionally permissible. (Paras 17-19, 21, 23)
C) Administrative Law – Government Resolutions – Application of Mind and Consultation – The State Government’s decision to transfer cases was not arbitrary but based on a proposal from the CBI and a recommendation of the Administrative Committee of the High Court. The fact that the CBI, a litigant, initiated the request did not vitiate the decision when the government applied its mind and followed statutory procedure. Held, no impropriety in issuing the resolutions. (Paras 10, 13, 22)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Government Resolutions dated 16.04.2025 and 25.04.2025 transferring the trial of corruption cases from Kolhapur to Pune issued under Section 205 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 are ultra vires and beyond the State Government's power, given the contention that the power to transfer cases vests exclusively in the High Court under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 / Section 447 of BNSS?
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed both writ petitions, holding that the State Government validly exercised its power under Section 205 of the BNSS to transfer the CBI corruption cases from Kolhapur to the Special Court at Pune. The court found that the provision’s non-obstante clause gave wide powers to the government, that there was no repugnancy to any previous directions of the High Court or Supreme Court, and that the recommendation of the High Court’s Administrative Committee indicated due process. The argument that the offences were not serious was rejected, and the court held that expeditious trial of corruption cases is in public interest. Rule discharged, no order as to costs.
Law Points
- State Government empowered under Section 205 BNSS to transfer cases or class of cases to any sessions division
- non-obstante clause overrides other jurisdictional provisions
- proviso requires no repugnancy to directions of High Court or Supreme Court
- exercise of power is valid when Administrative Committee of High Court recommends transfer
- corruption offences under PC Act are serious and expeditious trial is necessary
- mere request by CBI does not vitiate government decision if due application of mind is shown
Case Details
2026 LawText (BOM) (07) 101
Writ Petition No. 80 of 2026 with Writ Petition No. 4625 of 2025
Smt. Vrushali V. Joshi, Sandesh D. Patil
Mr. Ramesh Badi, Mr. Prakash M. Hilage, Mr. Tejas P. Hilage, Ms. Madhavi H. Mhatre, Mr. Avinash A. Naik, Mr. Kuldeep Patil, Mr. Dhavalsinh Patil, Mr. Ranjeet Patil
Ganesh Vilasrao Patil and Balkrishna Yallapa Hudale
Central Bureau of Investigation, Joint Director CBI, State of Maharashtra
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Two writ petitions challenging the legality of Government Resolutions that transferred corruption trials under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 from the Special Court at Kolhapur to a CBI Special Court at Pune.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners sought quashing and setting aside of the Government Resolutions dated 16.04.2025 and 25.04.2025 as ultra vires the Constitution and for a declaration that the State Government lacks the power to transfer cases.
Filing Reason
The petitioners, being accused in cases investigated by the CBI under the PC Act, contended that the transfer of their trials from Kolhapur to Pune was outside the State Government’s authority, as the power to transfer cases vests only in the High Court under Section 407 CrPC/447 BNSS. They alleged that the resolutions were issued arbitrarily at the CBI’s request.
Previous Decisions
The trials were originally pending before the Special Judge at Kolhapur. The CBI wrote to the Maharashtra Government requesting a special court at Pune. The High Court’s Administrative Committee recommended the enhancement of jurisdiction of the CBI Court at Pune. On 16.04.2025 and 25.04.2025, the State Government issued the impugned resolutions transferring the cases. No prior court order had addressed the same challenge.
Issues
Whether the State Government has the power under Section 205 of the BNSS to transfer a case or class of cases to a different sessions division, and whether the exercise of that power in this case was valid?
Whether the impugned Government Resolutions are repugnant to any previous directions of the High Court or Supreme Court?
Whether the transfer was improper because it was initiated at the behest of the CBI, a litigant, and whether the offences under the PC Act are serious enough to warrant such transfer?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners contended that the power to transfer a case from Kolhapur to Pune vested only in the High Court under Section 407 CrPC/447 BNSS, and the State Government could not override these provisions through executive order.
Petitioners argued that the Government Resolution was issued at the instance of the CBI, granting special treatment to a litigant and vitiating the decision.
Petitioners submitted that offences under the PC Act are not as serious as murder and that transfer would impose financial burden and hardship on litigants residing in Kolhapur.
Respondents submitted that the State Government exercised its statutory power under Section 205 BNSS, which has a non-obstante clause and empowers the government to direct that any case or class of cases be tried in any sessions division.
Respondents highlighted that the High Court’s Administrative Committee had recommended the transfer and enhancement of jurisdiction of the CBI Court at Pune, demonstrating due consultation and application of mind.
Respondents argued that the transfer aimed at expeditious trial of serious corruption cases, as the courts at Kolhapur were overburdened, and that no existing direction of a higher court was contravened.
Ratio Decidendi
The State Government has the statutory power under Section 205 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 185 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) to direct that any case or class of cases committed for trial in any district may be tried in any sessions division. This power is subject only to the proviso that the direction is not repugnant to any direction previously issued by the High Court or the Supreme Court. The provision’s non-obstante clause grants it overriding effect over the ordinary rules of jurisdiction under the same chapter. The mere fact that the proposal originated from a law enforcement agency like the CBI does not vitiate the government’s decision when there is due application of mind and the High Court’s Administrative Committee has recommended the measure. The court must give weight to the need for expeditious trial in serious corruption offences, which is consistent with the object of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Judgment Excerpts
Notwithstanding anything contained in the preceding provisions of this Chapter, the State Government may direct that any case or class of cases committed for trial in any district may be tried in any sessions division: Provided that such direction is not repugnant to any direction previously issued by the High Court or the Supreme Court under the Constitution, or under this Sanhita or any other law for the time being in force.
The argument of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the entire exercise was at the behest of the CBI, who is a litigant, and therefore, the transfer at the behest of litigant is improper has no substance in it.
As stated above, corruption erodes the very social and economic fabric of the country and therefore, it is considered to be a serious offence.
Procedural History
The petitioners were accused in cases registered by the CBI under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and were facing trial before the Special Judge at Kolhapur. The CBI wrote to the State Government requesting a dedicated Special Court at Pune for expeditious trial. The Administrative Committee of the Bombay High Court recommended the transfer and enhancement of jurisdiction of the CBI Court at Pune. On 16.04.2025 and 25.04.2025, the State of Maharashtra issued Government Resolutions transferring the said cases and other CBI cases from Kolhapur and other districts to the Special Court at Pune. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed writ petitions before the Bombay High Court (Kolhapur Bench) challenging the resolutions as ultra vires. The High Court heard the parties, reserved judgment on 07.07.2026, and pronounced judgment on 20.07.2026, dismissing the petitions and upholding the Government Resolutions.
Acts & Sections
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS): 197, 198, 205, 447
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: 3, 4(1)
