I am sure that there was great wisdom in the decision made by the SC in transferring the case out of Madhya Pradesh . But all the same we need to ask the court on what basis it took that decision. The judgement asserts that 'the order of the transfer of the case would not mean that it had gone into the merit of the allegation made by the family of the slain professor" If it beleives the state is hampering the process of justice then it should come out with it and the state government must come up with an explanation or be finally hauled up for not doing its duty . If a state government is found wanting ensuring that justice to be provided to its citizens is denied then there are numerous constitutional provisions to correct it. If not and the state is doing its duty why shift the case? It is an admitted fact that a prosecutor amy not be doing his duty , then the court can appoint a new prosector ! Why does the SC not draw up clear guidelines on what would be the basis for shifting cased out of the state? At the risk of the sounding absurd, if a government is not doing it duty at the centre would the supreme court suggest that case be moved to courts in Pakistan , Bangladesh or Sri Lanka?
