The Delhi High Court today 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 P S Teji said.
Also Read
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.
The court has also asked Bharti to file reply to the plea
to cancel his bail within one week and fixed the matter for May 17.
The Delhi government and the police have been at loggerheads on the same issue in other cases too, like the Kanhaiya Kumar sedition case and the CNG fitness scam case.
Bharti's wife has sought cancellation of his bail granted on October 7 last year on several grounds, including that the trial court "has not applied its mind" while granting relief to the former Delhi minister.
Lipika claimed the bail order was almost like a verdict and the trial court had relied on the case diary which allegedly should not have been done at that stage.
She had lodged a case of domestic violence and attempt to murder against the AAP MLA, who was arrested in the wee hours on September 29 last year after the Supreme Court had ordered him to surrender.
The trial court had granted him the relief, saying he was no longer required for investigation purposes and had observed that since he was a member of Delhi Legislative Assembly, there was no ground to agree with the apprehensions of the police that he may flee abroad.
However, the trial court had imposed several conditions on him, including that he would not leave Delhi without its prior permission, not tamper with evidence and join the probe as and when required.
On September 22 last year, the high court had rejected his anticipatory bail plea, observing that allegations against him were backed by "documentary proof".
