"Justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done." Discuss this with reference to judicial transfers during trials in high-profile criminal cases.

The maxim holds that a verdict commands public trust only when the process also looks impartial. The trial judge in the Lakhimpur Kheri case was transferred in the middle of the trial, and the son of a former Union Minister is a prime accused. That case shows how a routine administrative act can test this principle [1].

Why visible fairness matters

• Article 21 includes the right to a fair trial. In Zahira Habibullah Sheikh (2004), the SC held that a fair trial needs an atmosphere free of intimidation, and it moved the retrial out of Gujarat [3].
• Victims are stakeholders, not spectators. Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra (2022) recognised their right to be heard from investigation through to appeal [4].
• When the accused is influential, even neutral acts can be read as pressure.

Why transfers happen

• Article 235 gives High Courts control over the postings of district judges. Periodic transfers stop judges from becoming entrenched in one place [2].
• If every objection froze a posting, any party could stall a trial. The defence called the Lakhimpur Kheri transfer "routine" [1].

How mid-trial transfers dent "seen" justice

• Lost demeanour: a new judge reads the record but never watched the witnesses testify. This matters most in cases that rest on eyewitnesses.
• Delay: the new judge must re-learn a large record, which prolongs an already long trial.
• Opacity: "routine", said by the accused's lawyer, is not a reasoned order. The victims had already raised suspicions [1].
• Witness chill: a sudden change may discourage witnesses who have yet to testify.

Way forward

• High Courts should record reasons for transfers in high-profile trials and, where possible, keep the judge until the trial ends.
• New judges should hear such cases day to day.
• The Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 should be enforced. Mahender Chawla (2018) made it binding until Parliament passes a law [5].
• SC monitoring should track trial timelines, not only the accused's travel, such as the recently allowed Deepavali visit [1].

Transfers are an administrative necessity, but in sensitive trials their timing and reasons shape public faith as much as the verdict itself. Reasoned postings, quick hearings and protected witnesses would make sure justice is both done and seen to be done, keeping Article 21's promise of a fair trial.