Delhi businessman Tikku murder case accused moves SC, seeks removal of Rajya Sabha MP Ujjwal Nikam as SPP

Rajya Sabha MP and Special Public Prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam (File photo: ANI)

• Vijay Palande asks Supreme Court to remove Ujjwal Nikam as Special Public Prosecutor
• Palande argues Nikam's Rajya Sabha nomination disqualifies him as SPP
• Mumbai court earlier dismissed Palande's plea, citing constitutional provisions

Did our AI summary help?

Vijay Bhivajirao Palande, an accused in the 2012 killing of Delhi-based businessman Arunkumar Tikku, has approached the Supreme Court seeking the removal of Rajya Sabha member Ujjwal Nikam from his role as Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) in the case, as per LiveLaw.

The petition challenges Nikam’s continuation as SPP for the State of Maharashtra following his nomination to the Upper House of Parliament.

The matter was mentioned before Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi by Senior Advocate Vibha Datta Makhija, appearing on behalf of Palande.

While the CJI initially questioned why the petitioner had not first sought relief from the High Court, the bench eventually agreed to consider the issue.

Mumbai court’s order

Earlier, on February 5, a Mumbai court had dismissed Palande’s request to remove Nikam from the prosecution.

The trial court said that the objection raised by the accused was based on a misunderstanding of constitutional provisions.

Referring to Article 102(1), the court observed: "before being chosen as, and for being a member of either house of parliament, it has to be seen whether he holds any office of profit under the Government of India or any State. From the appointment of learned Ujjwal Nikam, the SPP, it is clear that he had been qualified for being a member of Rajya Sabha when he did not hold any office of profit."

According to the court, Article 102 (1)(a) "nowhere states that any person shall be disqualified for being a SPP if he holds any office of profit under the Government of India or any State."

The trial court also cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in State of Maharashtra v Prakash Prahlad Patil to highlight that courts should ordinarily refrain from interfering in policy decisions of the government.

Grounds raised by Palande

In his plea, Palande contends that Nikam’s nomination to the Rajya Sabha renders his continuation as SPP impermissible.

According to him, the position of SPP constitutes an “office of profit” under the state government.

He argues that while Nikam may appear in private matters, he cannot act as SPP after becoming a Member of Parliament.

Palande also voiced concern over possible undue influence, expressing apprehension that Nikam might leverage his political position to secure a conviction.

Opposition by Nikam and the State

Nikam opposed the application, submitting that no provision under the CrPC or the BNSS prevents him from continuing as SPP after his nomination.

He maintained that his appointment is contractual in nature and not a permanent post, and therefore does not amount to holding an office of profit.

The State of Maharashtra supported Nikam’s stand, asserting that the appointment of an SPP does not create an independent office within the meaning of Article 102(1). It argued that the engagement is not permanent but contractual and may be renewed from time to time.

The trial court also referred to Section 24(8) of the CrPC, which is said to authorise the State to appoint any individual as SPP, underscoring that judicial interference in such appointments would be unwarranted.

With the Mumbai court declining relief, Palande has now carried the matter to the Supreme Court.