Former Hassan MP Prajwal Revanna, who has been accused of sexually assaulting five women, alleged on Wednesday, April 23, that the special court for elected representatives is “prejudiced” and sought that the cases against him be transferred to another court.
Prajwal Revanna’s advocates filed the application in the 81st Additional City and Civil Sessions court on the day that the prosecution was to post evidence
in one of the cases against him. In this case, Prajwal Revanna is accused of sexually assaulting Mridula*, a woman who worked at the Revanna family’s farmhouse in Gannikada.
However, judge Santhosh Gajanan Bhat placed the petition before the Principal Judge who rejected Prajwal Revanna’s claim. The trial will continue in the same court.
Special Public Prosecutors BN Jagadeesha and Ashok Naik strongly objected to the application, saying that the allegations in the petition were false. They also said that such an application was not maintainable before the city civil and sessions court and that it should be filed before the principal judge. Filing such an application with the present court amounted to contempt of court as it was essentially directing the court to transfer its case, they said.
Why Prajwal wanted court changed
In his application, Prajwal Revanna claimed that the “comments and decisions” in the current case and in another case “would indicate a predisposition against the accused, which compromises the fairness and impartiality that is fundamental to the judicial process”.
He urged the special court to transfer the case either to the Karnataka High Court or to the Principal City Civil and Sessions court.
He claimed that the special court was biased against him as it had made derogatory remarks against him, and that his requests for access to digital records and Call Detail Records (CDR) had been delayed and ignored.
He said that the court had on several occasions since January 2025, spoken to him dismissively, using terms and expressions such as “Where is the hero?”, “mahatma”, “film hero…. won’t you see the video”. He said that not only were these words “sarcastic but with a prejudice”.
Prajwal Revanna claimed that on more than one occasion the court had recorded his submissions contrary to what was said with regard to his request to access digital evidence. He also alleged that the court did not allow him to inspect the digital evidence.
Even with regard to the discharge application, he said that the court did not grant his request to give him time to challenge the order rejecting his application. The court went ahead and framed the charges. He had to rush to the High Court and “in fact framing of charges did ensue to the disadvantage of the accused”.
“These actions have led to reasonably conclude that an objective assessment of the case against the accused may not be possible. It is firmly believed that a fair trial is vital to uphold justice, and it is requested a reassignment of this matter to ensure that it is handled by an impartial judge (sic)”.