Thaindian News

New Delhi, April 5 (IANS) The government Tuesday voiced its reluctance to appoint senior Supreme Court counsel U.U. Lalit as special public prosecutor (SPP) in the trial of the 2G spectrum case.

It told the apex court that such an appointment may not be in conformity with the Prevention of Money Laundering (PML) Act and would be open to challenge.

The apex court bench of Justice G.S. Singhvi and Justice A.K. Ganguly was told that under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, a person to be appointed as SPP should have served under the union/state for seven years.

When the court asked if in the interest of substantive justice, it could not appoint the special public prosecutor, Attorney General G.E. Vahanvati said the powers of the court under Article 142 of the constitution did not include powers to appoint public prosecutor.

The court wanted to know what was the meaning of “working under the union (central government)/state (government)”. Does it mean to be working as a law officer or public prosecutor, the court asked?

When Vahanvati told the court that such a person should be a standing counsel of the union/state, the court asked him then why was the word “standing counsel” not used in the PML Act.

As Vahanvati raised the technical objection to the appointment of Lalit, the court asked him to clearly state the government’s position on the issue by Friday.

“We are conscious of our responsibility (to appoint SPP) and will do it. Give us a week’s time. We will come with names for your consideration. We will not let the court down,” Vahanvati told the court.

When Vahanvati talked about liberal interpretation of the provisions of the PML Act, the court said that the “interpretation should be reasonable” and public prosecutor should be able to lead the prosecution case.

Senior counsel Prashant Bhushan, appearing for petitioner NGO Centre for Public Interest Litigation, said that the special public prosecutor should be an independent person who should be able to supervise the prosecution case.

He reiterated his earlier plea for setting up a penal of prosecution layers to oversee the case.

The court adjourned the matter and will take it up Friday.

Senior counsel K.K. Venugopal, appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation, told the court that Lalit was the lawyer of the Maharashtra government for 15 years and represented the central government for five years.

On April 1, Venugopal informed the apex court that Lalit had agreed, in “public interest”, to be the SPP to lead the CBI’s case in court.

Venugopal opposed Bhushan’s plea to look into the CBI charge sheet in spectrum scam case.

CBI counsel told the court that once the charge sheet is filed, it becomes the property of the judge of the trial court and it cannot be deliberated at any other forum.