The split verdict by a two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court on the appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor is likely to further delay the disposal of the appeal filed by former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa and three others against their conviction for corruption. For Ms. Jayalalithaa, who is keen on a clean chit well ahead of next year’s Assembly elections, any delay will be unwelcome. The court being divided on the validity of the appointment of G. Bhavani Singh as SPP is not by itself a matter of concern, as it can be resolved by a three-judge Bench; the development has thrown up the possibility of the entire hearing in the Karnataka High Court — which had concluded with the verdict remaining reserved — being required to be repeated. The Bench had allowed the appeal hearing to go on while it was deliberating on Mr. Singh’s appointment. It was clear that any order invalidating Mr. Singh’s appointment would automatically mean the matter would have to be heard afresh. That prospect still exists, as a three-judge Bench could well agree with Justice Madan B. Lokur’s ruling against Mr. Singh’s appointment. A simpler course would have been to stay the High Court hearing until the prosecutor’s status was resolved. Also, the Karnataka government and the intervener, DMK general secretary K. Anbazhagan, could have obtained an early clarification from the Supreme Court on who would represent the prosecution in the High Court.
The issue was agitated by Mr. Anbazhagan in the High Court, first before a single judge and later a Division Bench, and it finally landed up in the Supreme Court. 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. Yet, Mr. Singh began to represent the prosecution in the appeal based on an order passed by the Tamil Nadu government. Karnataka took the stand that its role had ended with the conduct of the trial, and that it did not take steps to consult the Chief Justice of the High Court and appoint a prosecutor for the appeal. However, a High Court Bench said Mr. Singh was entitled to be the prosecutor as Section 301 of the CrPC says a prosecutor appointed for a case could appear without written authority in other proceedings arising out of it. Justice R. Banumathi accepted this view and upheld Mr. Singh’s appearance, but Mr. Justice Lokur did not. The outcome of the proceedings before a larger bench will determine whether the High Court will have to re-hear the appeal or pass its verdict straight away. The public cannot be blamed if there is an impression that the judiciary itself is only muddling its way through a tangle created over the years.
The issue was agitated by Mr. Anbazhagan in the High Court, first before a single judge and later a Division Bench, and it finally landed up in the Supreme Court. 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. Yet, Mr. Singh began to represent the prosecution in the appeal based on an order passed by the Tamil Nadu government. Karnataka took the stand that its role had ended with the conduct of the trial, and that it did not take steps to consult the Chief Justice of the High Court and appoint a prosecutor for the appeal. However, a High Court Bench said Mr. Singh was entitled to be the prosecutor as Section 301 of the CrPC says a prosecutor appointed for a case could appear without written authority in other proceedings arising out of it. Justice R. Banumathi accepted this view and upheld Mr. Singh’s appearance, but Mr. Justice Lokur did not. The outcome of the proceedings before a larger bench will determine whether the High Court will have to re-hear the appeal or pass its verdict straight away. The public cannot be blamed if there is an impression that the judiciary itself is only muddling its way through a tangle created over the years.
No comments:
Post a Comment