LexSELVI J. JAYALALITHAA & ORS. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 17 S.C.R. 759 SELVI J. JAYALALITHAA & ORS. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. (Writ Petitiori_ (Crl.) No.154 of 2013) SEPTEMBER 30, 2013 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND S.A. BOBDE, JJ.] Advocates ..'.. Appointment of Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) - Withdrawal/revocation of the appointment - Validity A B - Proceedings against the petitioners for allegedly having C assets disproportionate to their known income - Warrant case under the Prevention of Corruption Act - Respondent no.4 appointed as SPP - Seven months thereafter, when the trial was nearing completion, appointment of respondent no.4 withdrawn by the State Government - No_tificatidn purporting D to revoke the appointment of respondent no.4.·C3s SPP - Validity - Held: On facts, it is liable to be struck down - Appointment of respondent no.4 was made' by the Government without questioning the ability or suitability of the incumbent nor the government raised any issue in respect of E the manner/issue of consultation - If the Government found F the name of respondent no.4, which was sent by the Acting Chief Justice of the High Court, not acceptable on any ground, it was duty bound to refer the name back to the Acting Chief Justice along with views and suggestions, which was not done - On the contrary, they proceeded to appoint respondent no.4 as SPP without demur, who had already been a Public Prosecutor for several years - Nothing on record to indicate that the State Government had been forced by anyone to appoint respondent no. 4 - The Government voluntarily G acquiesced in the process and is now not entitled to raise · grievance - Further, the appointment continued un-objected for almost seven months - Though there is undoubted power with the Government to withdraw or revoke appointment within 759 H 760 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 17 S.C.R. A s,21 of the General Clauses Act, but that exercise of power appears to be vitiated in the present case by malafides in law inasmuch as it is apparent on record that the switch-over of .government in between resulted in a sudden change of opinion for no discernable Je.gally sustainable reason ~ The" s sharp transitional decision was an act of clear unwarranted ind1seretion actuated by intention that does not appear to be founded on good faith - Order of removal of respondent no. 4 was a product of malafides - ~eneral Clauses Act, 1897 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. c Criminal Trial - Fair trial - Held: Is th1;3 .rnain object of criminal procedure and such fairness shotl1d not be hampered or threatened in any manner - Fair tri;Jl,entails the interests of the accused, the victim and of the sociefi -Free and fair trial is a sine qua non of Art. 21 of the Constitution - D Any hindrance in fair trial could be violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution - Fair trial is the heart of criminal jurisprudence and, in a way, an important facet of a demo(J(atic polity and is governed by rule of law - Denial of fair trial .is crucifixion of human rights - Constitution of India, 1950 - Arts. 12 and 14 E -Universal Declaration of Human Rights - Art. 12. Criminal Trial - Proceedings against thflpetitioners for allegedly having ·assets -disproportionate to their known income - Warrant case under the Prevention of Corruption F Act - Trial nearing completion - Impending retirement of the · Special Judge concerned - Prayer made before Supreme Court for direction to extend the tenure of the Special Judge till the conclusion of the trial - Held: It is a matter within the jurisdiction of the State in accordance with the relevant law - G SeNices of judicial officers in the State governed by the 2004 Rules - State Government competent to appoint Special Judge on contractual basis after his retirement for the period required to conclude the present trial, though with the consultation of the High Court as required u/Art.235 of the Constitution - Further, such a course must be adopted in the H . SELVI J. JAYALALITHAA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 761 manner prescribed under the 2004 Rules - Matter referred A to the High Court to decide· on the administrative side as to whether, in order to conclude the trial expeditiously as gµa~anteed unper Arf.21 of the Constitution requires the extension of the· services of the Special Judge - Karnataka Judicial Service (Recruitment) Ru/es, 2004 - r.11(2) - Maxim B "Expressio unius est exclusio alterius"..:. Constitution of India, 1~90,. Art
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.