Mumbai Court Dismisses Plea Against Ujjwal Nikam's SPP Appointment
A Mumbai sessions court has firmly rejected an application seeking the removal of Rajya Sabha MP Ujjwal Nikam as the special public prosecutor (SPP) in a murder trial. The court ruled that Nikam's appointment is contractual and temporary, and therefore does not constitute an "office of profit" under Article 102 of the Constitution of India. This decision allows Nikam to continue representing the state government in the case.
Background of the Legal Challenge
The plea was filed by Vijay Palande, who is accused of murdering Delhi-based businessman Arunkumar Tikku in 2012. Palande argued that Nikam, nominated as a Rajya Sabha MP in July 2025, cannot hold the SPP position because it represents an office of profit under the government. He cited Article 102(1)(a), which disqualifies MPs from holding such offices, and Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, noting that Nikam is appointed and paid by the state.
Additionally, Palande raised concerns about Nikam's role as a BJP spokesperson, suggesting potential undue influence in the trial. Nikam had previously resigned as SPP in 29 cases during the 2024 Lok Sabha elections but was reappointed afterward, a move Palande had earlier challenged unsuccessfully.
Court's Rationale and Legal Precedents
The court emphasized that Nikam's SPP role is not a permanent office but a contractual arrangement, lacking a "master-servant" relationship with the state government. It referenced the judgment in State of Maharashtra and Others v. Prakash Prahlad Patil and Others (2009), which advises against judicial interference in state policy decisions.
On the issue of office of profit, the court considered precedents like Jaya Bachchan v. Union of India and Others (2006), where the Supreme Court defined it based on the potential for pecuniary gain, not actual receipt. However, the court found that Nikam's temporary appointment does not meet this criterion, as it is not a permanent position filled by successive holders.
Implications and Broader Context
This ruling clarifies that MPs can serve as SPPs without violating constitutional disqualifications, provided the appointment is non-permanent. It underscores the state's authority to appoint advocates as SPPs under the CrPC and its replacement, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The decision also highlights the ongoing debate over the intersection of political roles and legal responsibilities in India's judicial system.
As legal proceedings continue, this case sets a precedent for similar challenges, reinforcing the distinction between contractual legal roles and permanent governmental offices.
