The appointment of senior counsel B V Acharya in the J Jayalalithaa disproportionate assets came as no surprise. If anyone could file the written submissions in just one day it was only him as he is well versed with the case and was in fact the first special public prosecutor of the case.
The contention by the state of Karnataka which is the prosecuting agency in the case is very clear.
Dismiss the appeal as J Jayalalithaa and others have not bothered making Karnataka a party despite the state being the prosecuting agency.
B V Acharya who had in fact stepped down from the post alleging pressure was officially appointed as the SPP once again.
The appellants ought to have made Karnataka a party and in the absence of the same, we have sought that the appeal be dismissed.
In this interview with Oneindia, Acharya says that his role is very limited.
What made you take up the assignment once again, considering that you had resigned earlier?
The state of Karnataka approached me and told me to file the written submissions as directed by the Supreme Court of India.
They felt that I was well versed with the case and only I could file the submissions in a short span of time.
When the Supreme Court had delivered its verdict on Monday, it gave us only a day's time to file the submission.
What is the main contention in the submissions?
In the written submissions it is said that Karnataka being the prosecuting agency has not been made a party in the appeal.
Even during the subsequent proceedings which went on in the High Court, Karnataka was not made a party.
Although the same was repeatedly pointed the same was omitted by the appellants and they failed to implead the state of Karnataka.
What are your thoughts on the Supreme Court verdict on Bhavani Singh?
Once a case is transferred to a state (Karnataka), the sole prosecuting agency is Karnataka. It is imperitive for Karnataka to appoint the prosecutor in the case.
Since in the case before the High Court, the appointment of Special Public Prosecutor was made by Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court while noting that it ought to have been done by Karnataka held that the appointment of the SPP was bad in law.
You have been appointed on such a short notice. What is your role now in the case?
My role is very limited. The Supreme Court had delivered the verdict on Monday and said that the written submissions should be filed in one day's time.
The government felt that no one else will be able to do the needful in just one day.
I have submitted by written arguments based on the verdict of the Supreme Court. That is my role.
You had resigned citing pressure. What made you accept the role once again?
As I have pointed out that my role is very limited. The state felt only I could make the submissions in such a short duration of time.
When can we expect the verdict?
That is really not for me to comment. Going by the time frame that the Supreme Court had spoken about to complete the hearing in three months, the verdict ought to be delivered by May 12.
What if the judge is unable to pronounce the verdict by May 12?
If the judge is unable to pronounce the verdict by May 12, then he can always write to the Supreme Court seeking extension of time.
What are your thoughts on the outcome of the case?
(smiles). I cannot comment on that. That is for the court to decide. Our job is to make our submissions to the best of our ability. The final outcome the court will decide and we do not comment on it.