MUMBAI: The Bombay HC’s interest in the appointment of special public prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam to represent the state in a double murder trial in Sangli seems undying. The court on Tuesday said it was not Nikam’s appointment or merit that was in question, but the larger issue concerning the government’s decision to choose him over the 36 prosecutors in Sangli.
The state government said Nikam was paid Rs15,000 per day for appearance in the court, whereas other prosecutors were paid Rs1,200. State advocate general Ravi Kadam said it was a subjective and independent decision of the government to appoint Nikam in this case.
The court, however, questioned the state over the gravity of the case for which they had to call Nikam to Sangli from Jalgaon, 700 km away. Kadam said the double murder, where two men were attacked with swords and their parts of their body were strewn around on July 2006, had sent shock waves across Sangli. He added that in cities like Mumbai, people were desensitised to such occurrences, but in order to re-instil the confidence of people in Sangli, the government had decided to appoint a special prosecutor to ensure that the incident was not taken lightly.
The court, however, took exception to the fact that the complainant Vinayak Patil, a hotel and bar owner in Sangli, had requested the appointment of Nikam in the case. Justices Bilal Nazki and SA Bobade said it gave a “wrong impression” when the complainant requested for a prosecutor. “He is a prosecutor and not a persecutor,” justice Nazki said. VK Tulpule, advocate for the petitioner Prakash Patil who challenged Nikam’s appointment said apart from the 36 prosecutors in Sangli, there were 18 special prosecutors. Kadam, however, denied that the government had appointed 18 special prosecutors appointed in Sangli.
Kadam also said the petitioner Patil was the brother of Arjun Patil, an accused in the case and had ulterior motives. Arguing for Nikam, senior advocate Ashok Mundargi said it was the government’s decision to appoint him in the case and he had no personal interest in the case. Mundargi said Nikam had represented the government in several cases across the state and this was just one among them.
The case will come up for hearing on April 8.
