SPP appt in Jaya case 'bad, but no fresh hearing in HC: SC

Clearing the decks for delivery of the judgement in the Jayalalithaa case in the Karnataka High Court, the Supreme Court today held as "bad in law" the appointment of G Bhavani Singh but ruled out fresh hearing in the appeal against her conviction.

Bhavani Singh was not eligible to be appointed as the SPP in the High Court by the Tamil Nadu Government as he was only engaged for the trial court proceedings as a "restricted appointment" by the Karnataka Government, which also has the authority to choose him in the appeal, the court said.

However, it said the annulment of SPP does not warrant "de novo" (fresh) hearing of appeals which has been heard at length by the High Court and the judgement has been reserved.

The apex court said the high court can go ahead and pronounce the verdict after considering the submissions of DMK General Secretary K Anbazhagan and the state in the matter.

The apex court said Karnataka became the sole prosecuting agency as the case was transferred to Bangalore from Tamil Nadu and its interference in appointment of Bhavani Singh was an indication of the government's "anxiety" about the "troubles of future".

"The state of Tamil Nadu had no authority to appoint Bhavani Singh as the Public Prosecutor to argue the appeal. It is the State of Karnataka which is the sole prosecuting agency and it was alone authorized to appoint the Public Prosecutor.

"The appointment of Bhavani Singh as the Public Prosecutor for the trial did not make him eligible to prosecute the appeal on behalf of prosecuting agency before the High Court," a three-judge bench comprising Justices Dipak Misra, R K Agrawal and Prafulla C Pant said.

The case was referred to the larger bench on April 15 when a bench comprising justices Madan B Lokur and R Banumathi had delivered a split verdict on the petition filed Anbazhagan challenging the appointment of Singh in the appeal filed by Jayalalithaa, her close aides Sasikala Natarajan and two of her relatives.

The larger bench did not concur with the findings of Justice Lokur that since the appointment of SPP was "bad in law" it required denovo hearing of the appeal in the High Court.

Though the appointment of Bhavani Singh is bad in law, yet there is no justification to direct for de novo hearing of the appeal...," the bench said while allowing  Anbazhagan and Karnataka to file written submissions in the high court.

The three-judge bench said it was the duty of the High Court judge to make a "complete and comprehensive evaluation and appreciation of the evidence in its entirety before rendering his judgment".

"The appellate court has a duty to make a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all vital features of the case. The evidence brought on record in entirety has to be scrutinized with care and caution. It is the duty of the Judge to see that justice is appropriately administered, for that is the paramount consideration of a Judge.

"The said responsibility cannot be abdicated or abandoned or ostracized, even remotely, solely because there might not have been proper assistance by the counsel appearing for the parties. The appellate court is required to weigh materials, ascribe concrete reasons and the filament of reasoning must logically flow from the requisite analysis of the material on record," the bench said.

It also said that appointment of a Public Prosecutor, as envisaged under Section 24(1) CrPC in the High Court is different than the appointment of a Public Prosecutor for the District Courts.

On April 22, the apex court had reserved its judgement on the issue of legality of appointment of Singh as SPP and noted that his appointment prima facie appeared to suffer from irregularities but it will not allow the de novo hearing before the high court.