Vinayaka Baliga murder case: HC quashes appointment of Ravindranath Kamath as SPP

October 21, 2021 01:47 am | Updated 01:47 am IST - Bengaluru

Bengaluru / Karnataka : 19/08/2020 :  A view of High Court of Karnataka  on 19 August 2020.  Photo : V Sreenivasa  Murthy/The Hindu.

Bengaluru / Karnataka : 19/08/2020 : A view of High Court of Karnataka on 19 August 2020. Photo : V Sreenivasa  Murthy/The Hindu.

The High Court of Karnataka has set aside the Government Order of appointing advocate Ravindranath Kamath as the Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) for conducting the trial in the criminal case of murder of Mangaluru-based RTI activist Vinayaka Baliga.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna passed the order while allowing a petition filed by M. Naresh Shenoy, who is the prime accused in the case, questioning the legality of the GO dated December 21, 2016, on appointing Mr. Kamath as the SPP.

The court held that the apprehension of petitioner-accused is “well founded” that “he would not be subjected to a fair trial in light of appointment of Mr. Kamath”, who had represented the causes of the victim’s father, Ramachandra Baliga, and sister Anuradha Baliga against the petitioner in various courts, including the High Court, prior to his appointment as the SPP.

Reiterating the court’s earlier finding in cases related to appointment of SPPs that the “fair trial does not necessarily mean that it must be fair only to the victim but it should be fair to the accused also”, the court termed as “erroneous and unwarranted” that appointment of Mr. Kamath as the SPP as he had espoused the causes of victim’s father and sister, who is also complainant in her brother’s murder case of 2016.

“An upright public prosecutor has no friends and foes in court. He has no prejudices, preconceived notions, bias, hostility or his own axe to grind. He represents public interest. He has no client or constituency apart from the State. He is above the personal loyalty... Public interest also demands that the trial should be conducted in a fair manner, heedful of the rights granted to the accused under the laws of the country... It is no part his obligation to secure conviction of an accused in any event or at all costs...” Mr. Justice Nagaprasanna quoted from a 2005 judgment of the High Court in the case of appointment of SPP based on a request made by victim’s wife in a politically sensitive murder case of Kolar.

While reserving the liberty to the complainant, Ms. Anuradha Baliga, to submit representation to the Government for appointing a new SPP for exclusive conduct of the trial, the court also said that the Government was free to appoint new SPP bearing in mind the observations made by the court.

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.