HC asks L-G and Centre to reply to Delhi govt on appointing SPPs

New Delhi: Claiming that the Special Public Prosecutors appointed by the Delhi Police "cannot act independently" as they have an "incentive to do the police's bidding" and that in several cases related to the Delhi riots "the police have been castigated for their shoddy investigation" which will "seriously jeopardise the fair trial in cases related to farmers' agitation and North-East Delhi riots", the Delhi government has moved the Delhi High Court against L-G Anil Baijal's decision to appoint lawyers chosen by the Delhi Police to prosecute these cases, with a division bench on Friday issuing a notice to the L-G in the matter.

The bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh sought a response from both the L-G and the Central government, listing the case next on October 21. During the hearing, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi represented the Delhi government.

In the plea filed by Advocate Shadan Farasat, the Delhi government has stated that its Cabinet had, on July 16, rejected the Delhi Police's request to appoint its chosen advocates as SPPs in cases related to the Delhi riots and farmers' protest on the grounds that the 'prosecutor' must be independent of the 'investigator' in keeping with the prosecutor's role as an independent officer of the court in order to fulfill the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial.

And hence, the Cabinet went on to appoint independent public prosecutors which was unacceptable to the L-G and the matter was eventually referred to the President. The plea claimed that the SPPs appointed were chosen by and at the behest of the Delhi Police through the L-Gs orders.

The Delhi government added that a reference to the President can only be made in exceptional circumstances and that appointment of prosecutors is a routine matter of administration. It has no adverse implications on the vital interests of the nation and "cannot by any stretch of imagination, qualify as an exceptional, extreme or unusual situation which warranted a reference to the President".

It added that the L-G's interference was "undermining the elected government", and went against the grain of Article 239-AA of the Constitution.

Noting that there was no "sound reason" for referring the matter to the President, the plea further said that there were no complaints that the cases were being delayed due to inadequate number of public prosecutors.

"...a prosecutor chosen by and appointed at the behest of an investigating agency, as has been done in the present case, cannot act independently because they have an incentive to do the police's bidding in that they will (a) dress up the lacuna in the investigation and relentlessly prosecute the accused; or (b) support the police's failure to investigate complaints of genuine victims," the plea claimed, adding the the appointment will "seriously jeopardize the fair trial" in cases related to both Delhi rits and farmers' agitation and that the belief that the SPPs will act independently is "wishful thinking" without fact or logic.