9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (9) TMI 1182 - SC - Indian LawsPower of the Government to withdraw or revoke the appointment of Ld. SPP u/s- 21 of General Clauses Act - Exercise of power appears to be vitiated by malafides in law - HELD THAT - the Government has to rise above the nexus of vested interests and nepotism and eschew window-dressing. The principles of governance have to be tested on the touchstone of justice equity and fair play. A decision may look legitimate but as a matter of fact if the reasons are not based on values but to achieve popular accolade the decision cannot be allowed to operate. Therefore unless it is found that the act done by the authority earlier in existence is either contrary to the statutory provisions or unreasonable or is against public interest the State should not change its stand merely because the other political party has come into power. Political agenda of an individual or a political party should not be subversive of rule of law . The decision n the case STATE OF T. NADU ORS VERSUS K SHYAM SUNDER 2011 (8) TMI 1086 - SUPREME COURT followed. Competency of State Government to appoint Ld. Special Judge on contractual basis - To Conclude present trail - With consultation of the High Court u/A- 235 of Constitution of India - HELD THAT - the State Government is competent to appoint the learned 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 u/A 235 of the Constitution. Further the matter requires to be considered by the State Government with the consultation of the High Court. Therefore the matter was referred to the High Court of Karnataka to decide on the administrative side to conclude the trial expeditiously as guaranteed u/A 21 of the Constitution requires the extension of the services of the learned Special Judge. As the matter was urgent the High Court of Karnataka is requested to take a decision in this regard as early as possible. The decision in the case STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VERSUS SINGHARA SINGH AND OTHERS 1963 (8) TMI 43 - SUPREME COURT followed.
Issues Involved
1. Legitimacy of the removal of the Special Public Prosecutor (SPP), Shri G. Bhavani Singh. 2. Right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. 3. Whether the court can extend the tenure of the Special Judge using its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution. Detailed Analysis Legitimacy of the Removal of the Special Public Prosecutor (SPP), Shri G. Bhavani Singh The petitioners challenged the removal of Shri G. Bhavani Singh, the SPP, by the Government of Karnataka. The petitioners argued that the removal was a calculated step to delay the trial, motivated by political reasons due to the change in government. The court noted that the removal of the SPP was unusual and not based on any issues of eligibility, suitability, or credibility. The court found that the Government of Karnataka had accepted the recommendation of the Acting Chief Justice without any objections and had voluntarily appointed Shri G. Bhavani Singh. The court held that the removal was vitiated by malafides in law, as it appeared to be politically motivated and not based on any sustainable legal reason. The court quashed the notification purporting to revoke the appointment of Shri G. Bhavani Singh as SPP. Right to a Speedy Trial under Article 21 of the Constitution The petitioners argued that the removal of the SPP violated their right to a speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court emphasized that a fair trial is the main object of criminal procedure and should not be hampered or threatened. The court noted that the trial had almost been completed, with the entire evidence recorded and the statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. also recorded. The court held that the abrupt removal of the SPP would delay the trial, as a new judge would take considerable time to familiarize themselves with the lengthy record. The court reiterated that the right to a fair and speedy trial is a fundamental right and any hindrance to it would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Extension of the Tenure of the Special Judge using Powers under Article 142 of the Constitution The petitioners requested the court to extend the tenure of the Special Judge, who was due to retire soon, to ensure the trial's conclusion. The learned Attorney General argued that the court could not exercise its powers under Article 142 to extend the tenure as it would contravene statutory provisions. The court acknowledged that while its powers under Article 142 are wide, they should not be exercised in contravention of statutory provisions. The court noted that the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977, and the Karnataka Judicial Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1983, allow for the appointment of a retired government servant on a contractual basis. The court referred the matter to the High Court of Karnataka to decide on the administrative side whether the extension of the Special Judge's tenure was necessary to conclude the trial expeditiously. Conclusion The court quashed the order of removal of Shri G. Bhavani Singh as SPP, finding it to be a product of malafides. The court emphasized the importance of a fair and speedy trial and referred the matter of extending the Special Judge's tenure to the High Court of Karnataka for an administrative decision. The writ petitions were disposed of with these observations and directions.
|
