New Delhi: Delhi Lieutenant Governor (LG) Anil Baijal told the High Court that the appointment of additional Special Public Prosecutors (SPPs) have been recommended for an efficient, speedy, and just prosecution of the cases which are highly sensitive in nature, such as the North East Delhi violence cases.
The LG, through an affidavit, further submitted that the same has no bearing on the competence or independence of the prosecutor who is an "officer of the court" and fulfils the duty of efficiently assisting the court while responding to the Delhi Government's petition challenging the decision of the Lieutenant Governor to allow Delhi Police's chosen lawyers as Special Public Prosecutors (SPP) for cases related to North East Delhi Violence and farmers protest.
The LG's office, while defending the appointment of additional SPPs, submitted that the petition filed by the Petitioner (Delhi Government) is steeped in malafides and an erroneous understanding of the law surrounding the exercise of powers by the respondents and therefore needs to be dismissed with cost. Earlier, the Delhi HC had sought a response on Delhi Government plea challenging the decision of the Lieutenant Governor allowing Delhi Police's chosen lawyers as Special Public Prosecutors (SPP) for cases related to North East Delhi Violence and farmers protest.
Also Read: Delhi court slaps sedition charge against Sharjeel Imam for 'inflammatory speeches'
The Petitioner, Delhi Government, had stated that the orders of LG dated July 23, 2021, and MHA August 4, 2021, by which Special Public Prosecutors (SPP) have been appointed for prosecuting the cases relating to Farmers' agitation and Delhi Riots/Anti-CAA protests. "These SPPs appointed have been chosen by the Delhi Police and thus have a serious conflict of interest. The SPPs are taking charge of the matters by displacing the regular public prosecutors and therefore, urgent directions are required from the Court to enable the regular public prosecutors to continue so as to not jeopardise fair trial in the said cases," it said in the plea.
The plea submitted that a "difference of opinion" and consequent referral thereof to the President by LG is in the teeth of Article 239AA(4) as interpreted by the Supreme Court in as much as "appointment of SPPs" is a routine matter and not an exceptional matter for which reference to the President can be made and LG had no sound reason for referring the matter to the President when the Petitioner had agreed to appoint independent SPPs.
The Additional Standing Counsel for Delhi Government, Advocate Shadan Farasat said, "the appointment of the SPPs chosen by the Delhi Police in the present case will seriously jeopardise the fair trial in the cases related to farmers' agitation and North-East Delhi Riots/Anti-CAA protests. LG's belief that the SPPs chosen by the Delhi Police will act independently is merely wishful thinking and has no basis in fact or logic." In the present case, neither the Delhi Police nor the LG has any complaint against the work of the regular public prosecutors in conducting the cases related to the farmers' agitation and North East Delhi riots.
"There are also no complaints that the cases are being delayed due to an inadequate number of public prosecutors. Thus, there existed no reason for the Delhi police to seek an appointment of SPPs or LG to approve the same," the plea read. The appointment of SPPs for cases pertaining to the North East Delhi violence and farmers' protest has emerged as the new sticking point between the Delhi government and the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi.
Earlier, on August 27, the Delhi High Court had issued notice to the Center and the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi on this issue. The list of lawyers on behalf of the Delhi Police to represent the cases of North-East Delhi riots and farmers' protest in the court was then rejected by the Delhi government which had appointed a new panel of lawyers. Later the Lieutenant-Governor had repealed this decision under the special powers provided under section 239AA(4).
The Lieutenant Governor had recommended the appointment of advocates suggested by the Delhi Police as "Government Advocates". However, the recommendation of the Lieutenant Governor is still pending with the President. Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, on behalf of the Delhi government, had argued that the appointment of government lawyers is a routine process and should not be considered an exception. This step affects the federal character of India. He also added that the Lieutenant Governor had always been obstructing the appointment of Special Public Prosecutor and thereby insulting the elected government of Delhi. This is a violation of section 239AA, he argued.
(With agency inputs)
