The Supreme Court on Monday struck down the appointment of Special Public Prosecutor Bhavani Singh and declared that the interference of the Tamil Nadu government in his appointment was a manifestation of the government's "anxiety" about the future. The court held that Karnataka is the sole prosecuting agency in the pending appeals filed by the former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister, Jayalalithaa, and three others against their conviction in the Rs. 66 crore disproportionate assets case.
A three-judge Bench, led by Justice Dipak Misra, directed the Karnataka government to file its written submissions by April 28 in the Karnataka High Court where the appeals are pending.
The Bench further directed the High Court judge to take no heed of the arguments made by Mr. Singh.
>Jayalalithaa wealth case: Timeline of events
It, however, dismissed any need for having a fresh hearing of the appeals.
Justice Misra, reading out the judgment, reasoned that the proceedings so far held cannot be "abandoned solely because there was no proper assistance" from the prosecution. He observed that for the High Court judge "the filament of reasoning will naturally flow from a dispassionate viewing of the evidence".
Justice Misra read out from the verdict in the open court, "We have not agreed with Justice Madan Lokur. There is no justification for fresh hearing, especially when the appeals have been heard at length and judgment is reserved. "
Asking the High Court judge to be vigilant about the "corroding effect of corruption" and the "gravity of the offence" against the accused in this case, the Bench said it was the duty of the judge to make a "complete and comprehensive evaluation and appreciation of the evidence in its entirety before renedering his judgment".
The Bench advised the High Court to "dispassionately render a judgment which is objectively and resolutely expressed".
The Bench was delivering the verdict on a reference made to it following a stalemate reached by an earlier Bench led by Justice Lokur on whether Mr. Singh had the authority to act as prosecutor in the appeals.
The Supreme Court, while extending Ms. Jayalalithaa's bail, gave the Karnataka High Court time till may 12 to deliver its judgment on the appeals.
SPP appointment only for specific case: SC
On the question of law whether a Special Public Prosecutor was within his rights to appear before the Karnataka High Court too, the Supreme Court on Monday interpreted the Code of Criminal Procedure Code to hold that when a “Special Public Prosecutor is appointed for any specific case and, that too, for any specific court, it is a restricted appointment.”
Besides, in the case of Mr. Bhavani Singh, the Bench said Rule 30 of Karnataka Law Officers (Appointments and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1977, demarcates public prosecutors in the High Court and the district courts.
Procedures violated
This Rule clarifies that if any counsel is to be appointed for the purpose of an appeal, the State government may do so only after consulting the Advocate-General or the Director of Prosecution in a civil or criminal case respectively. In Mr. Singh’s case, there was nothing on record to show this procedure was followed.
“It cannot be construed to the extent that solely because he [Mr. Singh] has been appointed in connection with the trial case, he can appear before the High Court for which he has not been appointed — it would lead to an anomalous situation. A Public Prosecutor has to be specifically appointed for the appeals or revisions or other proceedings in the High Court,” the Supreme Court said.
The Bench directed Karnataka to file its written submissions as prosecuting agency before the High Court by April 28. , 2015. The submissions, not more than 50 pages, would be considered by the High Court judge before the judgment on the appeals.
While extending Ms. Jayalalithaa’s bail, the Supreme Court had given the High Court time till May 12 to deliver its judgment.
Ms. Jayalalithaa and three others were sentenced to four years’ imprisonment for amassing disproportionate assets to the tune of over Rs. 53.60 crore during her first tenure as Chief Minister during 1991-96.
>The controversy
The Karnataka government appointed senior lawyer Bhavani Singh in February 2013 as the Special Public Prosecutor replacing B.V.Acharya, who cited suffering at the hands of ‘interested parties’. The appointment of the SPP was challenged by DMK leader K.Anbazhagan on the grounds that the accused was in collusion with the Special Public Prosecutor. The Karnataka HC had rejected the plea after which the DMK general secretary challenged the Supreme Court over the appointment. Former Tamil Nadu CM Jayalalithaa argued that the Mr. Anbazhagan’s plea was not ‘genuine’.
The curious case of the SPP
- Former Janata Party leader Subramanian Swamy files case alleging Jayalalithaa amassed properties disproportionate to her known sources of income
- Case shifted to Karnataka High Court after DMK cries foul about fairness of trial in Tamil Nadu.
- Karnataka appoints the former Advocate-General B.V. Acharya as Special Public Prosecutor.
- B.V. Acharya expresses inability to continue as SPP, citing pressure from BJP for holding the post of AG (since past 6 months) >read more
- B.V. Acharya quits as SPP after Karnataka accepts his resignation. >read more
- G. Bhavani Singh appointed as SPP as Acharya quits, citing mental agony over Lokayukta order to probe him. >read more
- Karnataka issues notification, citing no reasons, withdrawing Bhavani Singh’s appointment as SPP. Singh moves Supreme Court against the withdrawal. >read more
- SC quashes Karnataka’s notification, reinstates Singh.
- Apex court judge dismisses SPP plea to present seized silver articles of Jayalalithaa’s, says he is trying to cause delay.
- DMK leader K. Anbazhagan moves for Singh’s removal, saying issue of his continuation is still pending. >read more
- Supreme Court strikes down Singh’s appointment as SPP. >read more
>Anbazhagan seeks confirming of sentence
In line with a direction of the Supreme Court, DMK general secretary K.Anbazhagan filed his written submission with the Karnataka High Court that prayed for confirming the sentence and fine imposed on Ms. Jayalalithaa and three others in the case.
>Yet another twist
Editorial: The legal position was always clear - that once a case is transferred from one State to another, the transferee State alone is competent to appoint the prosecutor.
>Jayalalithaa defends Bhavani Singh’s continuance as SPP
Ms. Jayalalithaa argued that Mr. Anbazhagan’s petition to remove Bhavani Singh as Special Public Prosecutor in the appeal is not a "genuine plea."
>'Bhavani Singh has no authority to represent DVAC'
Mr. Anbazhagan’s counsel claimed that Mr. Singh was appointed as an SPP only for conduct of the trial by Karnataka govt. based on guidelines by SC
>In 2013, Anbazhagan moves HC in Jaya case
Mr. Anbazhagan recounted how he had given “a representation to Karnataka and Chief Justice of the Karnataka against Bhavani Singh detailing the allegations of collusion with the accused.”
Published - April 27, 2015 11:21 am IST
