Bengaluru, April 20: A three judge Bench of the Supreme Court will commence hearing on a very important plea in the J Jayalalithaa case. The Bench would have to decide whether the appointment of Bhavani Singh, the Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) in the case is legal or not.
Bhavani Singh who was the SPP in both the trial and the high court however points out to oneindia that he is not making an representation before the Supreme Court. It is between the government, petitioners and the court and I have no personal interest in it as I have done my duty.
"How am I connected?"
"This case is not a personal one. It is a case between the government and the rest of the people involved in it. I was appointed by the government as a Special Public Prosecutor for the trial court and subsequently in the High Court as well when the appeal commenced," Singh added.
"After my appointment, I advanced arguments both before the trial court and the high court. I have done my job and the rest of it should not concern me. Some people have filed an appeal challenging my appointment and the Supreme Court will take a final call on the matter."
"What the Supreme Court says will have to be abided by. I never made any representation in the first instance when the Supreme Court started hearing the appeal. I shall make no representation now too when the larger Bench commences its hearing," Singh added.
Will matter be re-heard?
A lot is riding on the verdict of the Supreme Court. It may take at least another week to 15 days before the final verdict on the legality concerning the appointment of the SPP is delivered.
If the Supreme Court declares the appointment of Singh as illegal, then the entire appeal will have to be re-heard in the High Court which may take another 2 months time. However if the appointment of Singh is held legal then the High Court can go ahead and pronounce the verdict.
Although there is no directive to the High Court to pronounce its verdict during pendency of the case before the Supreme Court, Justice Kumaraswamy has however decided to wait.
In fact, Justice Kumaraswamy who heard the appeal in the High Court had sought 15 days time to pronounce the verdict stating that he needed sometime to be ready.
What is the appeal about?
Jayalalithaa was convicted on corruption charges before the trial court. She preferred an appeal before the High Court which had been directed by the Supreme Court to complete the process in three months.
During the course of the hearing, a petition challenging the appointment of the SPP in the High Court was filed. It was alleged that the SPP's appointment was restricted only to the trial court and the same order could not be made applicable in the High Court as well.
Further it was also stated that the appointment was made by the Tamil Nadu government. When the case is being heard in Karnataka, it is the local government which ought to have made the appointment. The High Court however rejected the plea following which an appeal before the Supreme Court was made.
In the Supreme Court there was a divergent view. While one judge held that the appointment of the SPP was legal the other held it as illegal. This led to the matter being referred to a larger Bench comprising three judges for a final verdict.
The three judge bench will commence hearing on the case from tomorrow onwards.