State Can't Appoint Special Public Prosecutor At 'Specific Request' Of Complainant: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has held that while State may on its own appoint a Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) where a case needs special knowledge, it however cannot appoint an SPP on the specific request of the complainant as it goes against principle of fairness required in a criminal trial. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 290]In doing so the court quashed a State Government's notification appointing Senior Advocate Sadashiva Murthy as SPP in the murder case of Fr. Thomas K.J., the erstwhile Rector of St. Peter's Pontifical Seminary in Bengaluru.The petitioners, Fr. Elias Daniel, Fr. William Patrick, and Carmel Pete have been booked for offences under Sections 302, 201, 149 r/w Section 120B of IPC, for the murder of Fr. Thomas K.J. on March 31, 2013.The single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj held:“…. An accused has no right to choose, or to object to, the prosecutor who is to prosecute him. In the same way, a complainant can have no right to choose the prosecutor who is to prosecute the accused, and much less to have a particular person appointed by name. It is one thing for the State, on its own, to appoint a Special Public Prosecutor where the case needs special knowledge that the regular Public Prosecutor may not have. It is quite another thing for the State to appoint a named person at the specific request of the complainant. The first may be proper; the second is not, and it goes against the fairness that a criminal trial requires.”The court partially allowed the pleas filed by three accused-priests in the matter, holding that the re-appointment of Murthy–who was the first SPP in the case a decade ago, was vitiated by the creation of a 'reasonable apprehension of bias' due to direct payment of his remuneration by the complainant-Seminary.“...the fact that respondent No.6 [Seminary] has agreed to bear the remuneration, together with the direction allowing that remuneration to be paid directly by respondent No.6 to the Special Public Prosecutor, creates an advocate-client relationship and gives rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias, so as to affect the fairness of the trial, thereby rendering the appointment illegal”, the bench noted.According to the petitioners, the complainant Seminary had agreed to bear the remuneration payable to the SPP directly. The Court held this arrangement violated settled legal principles laid down in Mukul Dalal vs. Union of India (1988) and K. V Shivareddy vs. State of Karnataka (2005).Murthy was initially appointed as Special Public Prosecutor in 2014, removed in 2020, and replaced by Chinnappa Harsoor. Subsequently, the matter was entrusted to the regular Public Prosecutor. Despite the State Government initially rejecting the Seminary's request for Murthy's re-appointment on March 17, 2023, the impugned notification dated September 15, 2023, re-appointed him.The Court noted that the records produced by the State showed only three things: the Seminary's request, its acceptance, and the impugned order. “…Neither the note-sheet nor the order records any reason why a Special Public Prosecutor was needed in place of the regular Public Prosecutor. Nor do they show any special circumstance for setting aside the appointment of a regular Public Prosecutor or his replacement by a Special Public Prosecutor… The re-appointment, coming after removal and after rejection, called for recorded reasons of a higher order. None are available”, the Court observed.It also noted that Murthy had earlier appeared for the Archbishop of Bengaluru, who was connected with the complainant Seminary, and this gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.It emphasized that it was not casting any aspersions on the impartiality of Murthy but highlighting the State's inability to justify the reappointment.“The question is not whether the Special Public Prosecutor would in fact conduct an unfair trial. The question is whether there is a reasonable apprehension that a fair and impartial trial may not be conducted. …In answering this, this Court casts no doubt at all on the integrity of the Special Public Prosecutor. It is guided only by the settled rule that justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done, and, as is often said, even Caesar's wife must be above suspicion…”, the court underscored.While Section 24(8) of Cr.P.C. confers discretion on the State to appoint a Special Public Prosecutor, such power must be exercised fairly and for reasons connected with fair and impartial prosecution, the court remarked.The court concluded that for a SPP to be paid from a private source, given that there are special circumstances, that amount too should be deposited in advance with the prescribed State authority.“…. Applying these principles to the present case, the arrangement directs respondent No.6 Seminary, who is the complainant, to pay the Special Public Prosecutor directly. The fee is neither paid by the State nor deposited in advance with the State and drawn from there. Both parts of the...

State Can't Appoint Special Public Prosecutor At 'Specific Request' Of Complainant: Karnataka High Court

Sebin James

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sebin James

State Can't Appoint Special Public Prosecutor At 'Specific Request' Of Complainant: Karnataka High Court

Sebin James

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sebin James

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers