A three judge Bench of the Supreme Court, which had observed that the appointment of the Special Public Prosecutor by the Tamil Nadu government was wrong, however, permitted the High Court to go ahead with the verdict that it had reserved after hearing arguments at length.
What the court had observed:
The three judge Bench was constituted after a bench comprising two judges had differed in their view about the appointment of the Special Public Prosecutor.
The three judge bench had observed that a procedural irregularity does not warrant a fresh hearing of the case.
Further the court also observed that the Karnataka High Court will scan the evidence and fresh submissions made by DMK leader Anbazaghan and only then write the verdict.
The Supreme Court was hearing a petition challenging the appointment of Bhavani Singh as the Special Public Prosecutor to argue the case before the High Court.
The Bench had observed that the appointment was bad in law.
Tamil Nadu had no authority to appoint the prosecutor. The petition challenging the appointment had stated that it was Karnataka which had to appoint the Special Public Prosecutor in the case and TN had no jurisdiction to do so.
What was argued?
It argued that when the matter was transferred to Karnataka it was the Karnataka government which had issued a notification appointing the Special Prosecutor before the trial court.
The same ought to have been applicable in the High Court too when Jayalalithaa preferred an appeal challenging her conviction. However it was the Tamil Nadu government which made the appointment the petitioner also argued.
The Supreme Court had also observed that the submission made by DMK leader Anbazahgan should be taken into consideration before the Karnataka High Court delivers its verdict.
The High Court while hearing the appeal had refused to permit the DMK leader to make submissions and also present fresh evidence.
The case history:
The appointment of the Special Prosecutor was challenged by the DMK leader.
However, with the High Court refusing to entertain the argument, the matter went up before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court which heard the matter delivered a divergent verdict.
While one judge maintained that the appointment was right the other termed it as bad in law. This led to the Supreme Court constituting a three judge bench to hear the case.
The three judge bench commenced hearing on the matter on Tuesday.
The three judge bench which observed that the appointment of the prosecutor was not right as it was done by Tamil Nadu and not Karnataka, however, said that it did not mandate a fresh hearing into the case.
It is a procedural irregularity and does not warrant a fresh hearing the Bench observed.