Power of Supreme Court to transfer cases and appeals
Section 446 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 deals with power of Supreme Court to transfer cases and appeals. Whenever it is made to appear to the Supreme Court that an order under this section is expedient for the ends of justice, it may direct that any particular case or appeal be transferred from one High Court to another High Court or from a Criminal Court subordinate to one High Court to another Crimin The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
(1) Whenever it is made to appear to the Supreme Court that an order under this section is expedient for the ends of justice, it may direct that any particular case or appeal be transferred from one High Court to another High Court or from a Criminal Court subordinate to one High Court to another Criminal Court of equal or superior jurisdiction subordinate to another High Court.
(2) The Supreme Court may act under this section only on the application of the Attorney-General of India or of a party interested, and every such application shall be made by motion, which shall, except when the applicant is the Attorney-General of India or the Advocate-General of the State, be supported by affidavit or affirmation.
(3) Where any application for the exercise of the powers conferred by this section is dismissed, the Supreme Court may, if it is of opinion that the application was frivolous or vexatious, order the applicant to pay by way of compensation to any person who has opposed the application such sum as it may consider appropriate in the circumstances of the case.
Section 446, The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act 46 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure
CRPC 406 Power of Supreme Court to transfer cases and appeals Text carried over almost unchanged 99%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Abdul Nazar Madani v. State of Tamil Nadu
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 406, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgment of Main Case order-1.pdf 2000-05-05 DATE VERIFIED. Thomas/Sethi. Transfer petition (Coimbatore blasts). CrPC 406 power to transfer is used only if the apprehension of an unfair trial is reasonable; a surcharged atmosphere or convenience of one accused is not enough. Convenience of witnesses and other accused also counts. Petition dismissed. Map crpc 406 + BNSS 446 successor.
On this section: Successor of CrPC 406 (mapping.csv near-identical, score 0.9867). The reasonable-apprehension transfer holding carries to BNSS 446.
-
Durgesh Sharma vs Jayshree
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 406, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A High Court has no power, authority or jurisdiction to transfer a case, appeal or other proceeding pending in a Court subordinate to it to any Court subordinate to another High Court. Only the Supreme Court of India, in exercise of power under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, can effect such transfer. Section 23(3) of the CPC is merely a procedural provision specifying the forum for making an application and does not confer substantive power of transfer. Where courts are subordinate to different High Courts, application for transfer must be made to the Supreme Court under Section 25. The provisions of Sections 22 to 25 of the CPC relating to transfer are exhaustive in nature, and no other provision or inherent power can be invoked to effect inter-High Court transfers.
On this section: Analogous provision in criminal procedure granting Supreme Court wide powers to transfer criminal cases. Parliament used this as a model while amending Section 25 of CPC to grant similar powers to Supreme Court for civil cases.
-
Haji Mahboob Ahmad vs Kalyan Singh
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 406, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Supreme Court of India has the constitutional power under Article 142 to transfer criminal proceedings from one court to another to remedy procedural defects and ensure complete justice, even when the High Court has statutory power under Section 407 of the Criminal Procedure Code to do so. This power can be exercised when crimes that shake the secular fabric of the Constitution have allegedly been committed and the accused persons have not been brought to book largely because of procedural defects and the conduct of the investigating agency. The transfer does not violate Article 21 of the Constitution because the procedure established by law itself contemplates such transfers under Section 407 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the absence of a non-obstante clause in Section 11(1) proviso of the Criminal Procedure Code distinguishes this case from cases where substantive rights are infringed. Additionally, criminal conspiracy charges already contained in a joint charge sheet cannot be separated from the accused persons by discharging them, and all offences committed in the course of the same transaction to accomplish a conspiracy must be tried jointly.
On this section: Power of Supreme Court to transfer cases - the Court held this section does not apply to transfers between courts subordinate to the same High Court
-
Bhiaru Ram vs Central Bureau of Investigation
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 406, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The power to transfer a criminal case under Section 406 CrPC is available only when it is expedient for the ends of justice. Mere inconvenience to parties and witnesses, however genuine, is not a sufficient ground for transfer. A party seeking transfer must demonstrate a reasonable apprehension that justice will not be done if the case remains in the chosen forum. The court must be satisfied that the trial in the current forum will result in denial of justice or failure of justice before exercising its discretionary power to transfer. Convenience is a permissible consideration only when coupled with reasonable apprehension of impropriety or denial of justice.
On this section: The Court examined the jurisdictional power of the Supreme Court to transfer criminal cases from one High Court jurisdiction to another. The Court held that transfer is permitted only when it appears to the Court that such transfer is 'expedient for the ends of justice' and that mere convenience cannot satisfy this requirement.
-
Manisha Keyal vs Manoj Kansal
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When matrimonial proceedings involving divorce and maintenance are pending in multiple courts across different states, the Supreme Court may, at the joint request of parties and their counsel, exercise its transfer power to consolidate all proceedings in a single competent jurisdiction to ensure expeditious disposal and prevent forum shopping or procedural complications.
On this section: Applied to authorize transfer of the criminal maintenance petition from Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural to competent court at Patiala House, Delhi
-
Shikha Tiwari vs Prateek
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 406, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a party to family court proceedings has shifted residence to another state, the Supreme Court may exercise its discretionary power under Section 406 CrPC to transfer the pending case to a court in the new place of residence, notwithstanding the objection of the other party based on employment connection to the original court jurisdiction. The residential relocation of a petitioner constitutes a sufficient ground for transfer, particularly when it has been established through the party's own statements in proceedings and when previous transfer requests between the same parties have been granted on similar grounds.
On this section: Section 406 provides the Supreme Court with power to transfer cases from one court to another. The Court invoked this section as the primary statutory basis for granting the transfer petition, allowing movement of the case between Family Courts in different states based on the petitioner's residential relocation.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 446
What have the courts held on Section 446 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita?
Abdul Nazar Madani v. State of Tamil Nadu (05 May 2000) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under CRPC 406, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Successor of CrPC 406 (mapping.csv near-identical, score 0.9867). The reasonable-apprehension transfer holding carries to BNSS 446. Another 5 judgments on this section are set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2000 to 2024.
How do I find court cases under Section 446 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: BNSS 446, section 446 BNSS, section 446 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. People searching for it also type 446 bnss act and 446 bnss in crpc. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 6 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Abdul Nazar Madani v. State of Tamil Nadu (05 May 2000).
What should I read with Section 446 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and has it changed?
It carries forward CrPC 406 (Power of Supreme Court to transfer cases and appeals), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 446 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita come into force?
Section 446 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, cited as BNSS 446, came into force on 01 Jul 2024, having been enacted on 25 Dec 2023. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 359. Compounding of offences1355 words
- 187. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours1122 words
- 2. Definitions956 words
- 243. Trial for more than one offence930 words
- 35. When police may arrest without warrant881 words
- 480. When bail may be taken in case of non-bailable offence823 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.