Karnataka government has reappointed B.V.Acharya, senior counsel and former Advocate General, as Special Public Prosecutor in the Jayalalithaa case. This case has become a circular game played by politicians and the judiciary. In the game of chess, if the same position is repeated three times, the game is considered a draw. But in politics, there are no rules. Unfortunately, judiciary is no better.
As the present case has shown, different judges of the Supreme Court come to diametrically opposite conclusions even on questions of law and do not hesitate to use strongest possible epithets to bolster their case. It is now not proper to say that the Supreme Court has taken some decision. We can only say that this particular judge has taken this specific position and that too in a particular case. Different cases may witness the same judge take different legal stands.
Acharya had earlier resigned from Special Public Prosecutorship quoting pressure from different sources. Has the pressure disappeared? His reappointment may very well attract further litigation. Government has reappointed him perhaps because the Supreme Court had allowed the Karnataka government and Anbazhagan of DMK to file their written opinions with the Karnataka High Court. Justice Kumaraswamy has been advised by the Supreme Court to ignore all arguments presented orally or in writing by Bhavani Singh. Strangely, the time prescribed by the Supreme Court for the Karnataka government to submit its written opinion is already over. Another Bench of the Supreme Court had earlier advised the High Court to render judgment by May 12th.
The case is now so replete with enigmatic judicial interventions masked as guidance that only one thing is certain: Justice will not be delivered, only judgments will be delivered.
As the present case has shown, different judges of the Supreme Court come to diametrically opposite conclusions even on questions of law and do not hesitate to use strongest possible epithets to bolster their case. It is now not proper to say that the Supreme Court has taken some decision. We can only say that this particular judge has taken this specific position and that too in a particular case. Different cases may witness the same judge take different legal stands.
Acharya had earlier resigned from Special Public Prosecutorship quoting pressure from different sources. Has the pressure disappeared? His reappointment may very well attract further litigation. Government has reappointed him perhaps because the Supreme Court had allowed the Karnataka government and Anbazhagan of DMK to file their written opinions with the Karnataka High Court. Justice Kumaraswamy has been advised by the Supreme Court to ignore all arguments presented orally or in writing by Bhavani Singh. Strangely, the time prescribed by the Supreme Court for the Karnataka government to submit its written opinion is already over. Another Bench of the Supreme Court had earlier advised the High Court to render judgment by May 12th.
The case is now so replete with enigmatic judicial interventions masked as guidance that only one thing is certain: Justice will not be delivered, only judgments will be delivered.
No comments:
Post a Comment