The judge made the remarks when the application seeking cancellation of bail granted to AAP MLA Somnath Bharti's hearing in domestic violence case.
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday expressed anguish over the continuing tussle between the AAP government and the Centre on the issue of who will represent the Delhi Police before it saying it is "becoming a routine".
"Today again, the drama is being watched in this court wherein two advocates are claiming themselves to be Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) and Additional Public Prosecutor (PP) representing the state. This court observes that it is becoming a routine in other cases where two advocates appear wherein one is claiming to be SPP and the other is claiming to be APP for the state... It is apparent that there are few matters, in which such conflict is seen. Earlier also, in one case both the parties were asked to file their respective replies," Justice PS Teji said.
The judge made the remarks when the application seeking cancellation of bail granted to AAP MLA Somnath Bharti in a domestic violence case came up for hearing today.
Cautioning both the counsel, who claim themselves to be representing in the matter, the court said, "This is not in the interest of criminal justice or in the state to have such scenario to be watched in the court as well as by the public."
When the plea, filed by Bharti's wife Lipika Mitra, was heard, the prosecutor appointed by the Delhi government, objected to the appearance of police's lawyer Shailendra Babbar.
Babbar opposed the contention saying he has been appointed as SPP for this case by the Lieutenant Governor. On which the court observed that Bharti was granted bail during investigation of the case, but this court "is of the view that in such a scenario it should be left with the Investigating Officer (IO) to have its representative, as the prosecution and the investigation cannot have a difference of opinion. "This system of representing the state by two public prosecutors has itself affected the judicial process, wherein one advocate claims himself to be representing the state and the other claims to be representing the police." "In the aforesaid scenario, it is once again directed to all the three persons, i.e., Shailendra Babbar, Special Public Prosecutor, Rajat Katyal,
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, and respondent No. 2 (Bharti) to file their respective replies to the petition within a period of one week, so that at least the status of the investigation is clear to everybody," it added.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "Somnath Bharti")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}