Supreme Court judges differ on appeal in Jaya disproportionate assets case

However, a bench comprising Justices Madan B Lokur and R Banumathi failed to reconcile their views on whether appearance of a special public prosecutor, who was appointed to conduct trial, was also authorised to argue in the appeal in Karnataka High Court.

Jayalalithaa had challenged her conviction and four-year jail term in a case of amassing assets disproportionate to her known sources of income during 1996-97. She was held guilty by a special court in Karnataka, where the matter had been transferred by the top court to ensure a free and fair trial. Bhavani Singh was appointed as the special prosecutor. However, when Singh appeared in the high court during appeal, DMK leader K Anbazhagan, who is one of the complainants in the case, challenged Singh’s continuation and moved the apex court.

[related-post]

Writing a dissenting judgement, Justice Lokur said Singh’s appointment was limited for trial and his continuation in the high court, without any fresh notification of his appointment by the Karnataka government, vitiated the proceedings. He said that the appeal required to be heard afresh since Singh was not authorised to represent the prosecution in the appeal. Justice Lokur directed the Karnataka government to appoint a new prosecutor. He also described this case as a “classic illustration of what is wrong with our criminal justice delivery system.” It was either a reflection on the role that power and influence can play in criminal justice delivery or an extremely unfortunate situation that a criminal trial should take more than 15 years to conclude, he said.

But the other judge on the bench, Justice Banumathi held Singh’s continuation valid. She underlined that a special prosecutor, who is in charge of a case, can appear and plead without any written authority in any court of criminal jurisdiction in which such case is under inquiry, trial or appeal. “In my view there is no limitation either on territory or hierarchy of courts. There is no merit in the contention that the authority of special prosecutor ends with the conclusion of the trial and disposal of a case. Special prosecutor is not attached to a particular court or local area, but he is attached to the ‘case’ or ‘class of cases’,” she said.