Court Rejects Plea to Remove Ujjwal Nikam as SPP in 2012 Murder Case
A sessions court in Mumbai has dismissed an application filed by murder accused Vijay Palande, which sought the removal of Rajya Sabha MP and lawyer Ujjwal Nikam from his position as special public prosecutor (SPP) in the 2012 Arunkumar Tikku murder case. The court ruled that Nikam's appointment does not constitute an 'office of profit' under constitutional provisions, thereby allowing him to continue in the role.
Background of the Case and Legal Arguments
Vijay Palande, who faces charges in multiple murder cases, argued that Nikam's role as an SPP, appointed by the state government and paid from public funds, should be considered an office of profit. This, he claimed, disqualifies Nikam under Article 102(1)(a) of the Constitution, which outlines disqualifications for membership of Parliament. Palande further alleged that Nikam, as an MP and spokesperson for the ruling BJP, could exert undue influence and held a personal grudge against him due to past opposition to his reappointment.
In response, Nikam, along with the state government's Law and Judiciary department and the Director of Prosecution, contended that his appointment as SPP dates back to 2012. They noted that Nikam had resigned in April 2024 while contesting the Lok Sabha elections and was reappointed on May 6, 2024, after his defeat. The state emphasized that the SPP position is a contractual appointment, not a permanent office, and thus falls within its prerogative to appoint any advocate.
Court's Ruling and Rationale
Additional Sessions Judge R J Pawar, in the order passed on February 5 and made available on Tuesday, upheld the state's arguments. The court stated that Palande had 'misconceived' Article 102, clarifying that it does not disqualify a person from serving as an SPP if they hold an office of profit. The judge emphasized that Nikam was qualified for Rajya Sabha membership at the time of his nomination, as he did not hold any office of profit then.
The court further asserted that it cannot interfere with the state's policy decisions regarding the appointment of SPPs. "Therefore, it is seen that the court cannot interfere with policy decision of state thereby appointing learned Ujjwal Nikam as Special Public Prosecutor," the order stated. This ruling reinforces the state's entitlement to appoint advocates to such roles without judicial intervention, provided constitutional guidelines are met.
Implications and Broader Context
This decision has significant implications for legal and political spheres, as it clarifies the distinction between permanent governmental offices and contractual prosecutorial roles. It also highlights the ongoing legal proceedings in the high-profile Tikku murder case, where Nikam continues to represent the state. The case underscores the interplay between political appointments and judicial processes, with the court prioritizing state autonomy in prosecutorial matters.
The ruling may set a precedent for similar cases involving allegations of office of profit against public prosecutors, ensuring that such appointments remain within the state's discretionary powers unless explicitly barred by law.
