Ousted SPP in Jayalalithaa case to move SC

Hearing on Anbazhaghan's petition on SPP appointment adjourned

August 28, 2013 01:42 pm | Updated November 16, 2021 11:14 pm IST - BANGALORE

G. Bhavani Singh

G. Bhavani Singh

G. Bhavani Singh, who was on Monday removed from the post of Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) in the disproportionate assets case against Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa, on Wednesday moved the Karnataka High Court challenging his ouster but withdrew the petition when it came up for hearing.

Sajan Poovayya, counsel for Mr. Singh, told the court that his client was advised to approach the Supreme Court directly as appointment of SPP in the case was governed by the orders passed by the Supreme Court while transferring the case to Bangalore in 2003.

Justice A.S. Bopanna, before whom the petition came up for hearing, permitted the petition’s withdrawal.

Singh’s contentions

In his petition, Mr. Singh had contended that the government violated apex court’s direction in removing him from the post without consulting the Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court. As the State government will have to appoint SPP for the this particular case strictly in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court, the consultation with the Chief Justice is mandatory even for removal of persons appointed to the post of SPP, it was argued in the petition.

Besides, Mr. Singh had claimed that removing him from the post without providing him an opportunity in the background of certain allegations made in the petition filed by DMK general secretary K. Anbazhaghan had attached stigma to his career.

Anbazhagan’s plea

Meanwhile, the High Court on Wednesday adjourned to next week the hearing on Mr. Anbazhagan's petition challenging appointment of Mr. Singh.

Justice Bopanna adjourned hearing as senior counsel C.V. Nagesh, appearing for Mr. Anbazhagan, insisted that the petition survives for consideration by the Court despite removal of Mr. Singh. Mr. Nagesh argued that the High Court, among other issues, is required to answer the legal issue raised in the petition that whether an advocate other than a designated senior advocate could be appointed as SPP in the case. Mr. Singh is not a designated senior advocate and the apex court's direction was to appoint a senior lawyer as SPP for the case, it was argued. As per Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961, there will be two classes of advocates – senior advocates and other advocates. And an advocate can be designated as a senior advocate if the Supreme Court or a High Court opines that by virtue of his ability, standing at the Bar or special knowledge or experience in law, he is deserving such distinction.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.