Accused In 2012 Tikku Murder Moves Supreme Court Seeking Removal Of Ujjwal Nikam As SPP After Rajya Sabha Nomination

The petition challenges Nikam’s continuation as SPP for the State of Maharashtra following his nomination to the Rajya Sabha, contending that his parliamentary position makes his prosecutorial role constitutionally impermissible.

The matter was mentioned before a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi by Senior Advocate Vibha Datta Makhija, appearing for Palande.

While the CJI initially queried why the petitioner had not first approached the High Court, the Bench agreed to consider the plea.

Earlier, on February 5, a Mumbai sessions court had dismissed Palande’s application seeking Nikam’s removal as SPP. The trial court held that the objection was founded on a misreading of constitutional provisions.

Referring to Article 102(1) of the Constitution, the court observed that disqualification on the ground of holding an “office of profit” applies to the stage of being chosen as, or continuing as, a Member of Parliament. The court noted that Nikam was eligible for Rajya Sabha nomination as he did not hold any office of profit at the time of his appointment.

The court further held that Article 102(1)(a) does not state that a person becomes disqualified from acting as a Special Public Prosecutor after becoming a Member of Parliament. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Maharashtra v. Prakash Prahlad Patil, the trial court emphasised that courts should ordinarily refrain from interfering in government policy decisions, including prosecutorial appointments.

Before the Supreme Court, Palande has argued that Nikam’s continuation as SPP after his nomination to the Rajya Sabha violates constitutional norms. He contends that the post of SPP amounts to an office of profit under the State government, and that a sitting MP cannot continue to prosecute a criminal case on behalf of the State.

The petitioner has also raised concerns of possible undue influence, apprehending that Nikam’s political stature could impact the fairness of the trial and prejudice the accused.

Nikam opposed the application, submitting that neither the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) nor the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) bars a Member of Parliament from functioning as a Special Public Prosecutor. He maintained that the appointment is purely contractual, not permanent, and therefore does not constitute an office of profit.

The State of Maharashtra supported Nikam’s position, arguing that an SPP does not hold an independent office within the meaning of Article 102(1). It further submitted that the engagement is contractual, renewable at the State’s discretion, and does not attract constitutional disqualification.

The trial court had also relied on Section 24(8) of the CrPC, which empowers the State to appoint any advocate as a Special Public Prosecutor, noting that judicial interference in such appointments would be unwarranted.

With the Mumbai court having declined relief, the Supreme Court will now consider whether Nikam’s dual role as a Rajya Sabha MP and SPP raises constitutional or procedural concerns warranting interference.