The Supreme Court today delivered a split verdict in the disproportionate assets case against J Jayalalithaa on a plea seeking removal of special public prosecutor (SPP) Bhavani Singh and referred it to a larger bench for an authoritative pronouncement.
Justice Madan B Lokur, who headed the bench and wrote the 78-page verdict while allowing a plea of DMK leader K Anbazhagan, said: "I hold that Bhavani Singh is not authorized to represent the prosecution in the Karnataka High Court in the appeals filed by the accused persons against their conviction by the Special Court.
"That being so, the final hearing proceedings in this regard before High Court are vitiated and the appeals filed by the accused persons being Criminal Appeals Nos. (against conviction) will have to be heard afresh by High Court."
Justice R Banumathi, penning a dissenting verdict, blamed the Karnataka government for not taking corrective steps and said, "In my considered opinion, the Special Public Prosecutor appointed for the case would continue to be in charge of the case before the High Court also.
"The reason being, SPP is not attached to a particular Court or local area, but he is attached to the 'case' or 'class of cases' and therefore SPP can appear without any written authority before any Court where that case is under inquiry, trial or appeal. Thus, the authority of SPP will follow the stage of case, until his authority has been revoked by the State in express terms."
Noting the dissent, the bench said, "in view of difference of opinion, the matter is referred to a larger Bench. The Registry is directed to place the matter before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders."
The 15-year-long history of the case against the former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and AIADMK Chief has extensively been referred to by Justice Lokur in his verdict.
"Before adverting to the facts of the case, it needs mention that this case is a classic illustration of what is wrong with our criminal justice delivery system. If the allegations made by K Anbazhagan are true that the accused persons used their power and influence to manipulate and subvert the criminal justice system for more than 15 years, thereby delaying the conclusion of the trial against them, then it is a reflection on the role that power and influence can play in criminal justice delivery," Justice Lokur said.
