- (1.) The Attorney-General of India has made these motions under S. 11(2) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987. By the motion, the concurrence of the Chief Justice of India is sought to enable the Central Government to transfer three criminal cases, viz., T.P. (Crl.) No. 310/91 (Attorney-General of India v. Mohd. Saleem Zargar), T. P. (Cr1.) No. 308/91 (Attorney-General of India v. Yasin Malik and ors.) and T. P. (Cr1.) No. 309/91 (Attorney-General of India v. Mohd. Maqbool Tantry and ors.) now pending trial and bidding decision on the file of the Designated Court, Jammu, in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to another Designated Court in another State.
(2.) Section 11(2) provides: "(2) If, having regard to the exigencies of the situation prevailing in a State, the Central Government is of the opinion that - a) the situation prevailing in such State is not conducive to a fair, impartial or speedy trial, or b) it is not likely to be feasible without occasioning the breach of peace or grave risk to the safety of the accused, the witnesses, the Public Prosecutor and the Judge of the Designated Court or any of them, or c) it is not otherwise in the interests of justice, it may, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of India (such concurrence to be obtained on a motion moved in that behalf by the Attorney-General), transfer any case pending before a Designated Court in that State to any other Designated Court within that State or in any other State."
(3.) It is submitted by Sri D. N. Dwivedi, learned Additional Solicitor General of India that the Central Government proposes o transfer these three cases from the file of the Designated Court Jammu, to the Designated Court at the Ajmer Jail in the State of Rajasthan for reasons of high security. Notices were ordered on these motions to the respondents so as to afford them an opportunity of being heard. Respondents are served but have remained unrepresented.;