The Karnataka High Court has recently overturned the appointment of Sadashiva Murthy as a Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) in a high-profile case involving the murder of a Christian priest. The decision was made after it was found that the appointment was initiated at the request of the complainant, a seminary, which also funded the SPP’s legal fees. This development arose from the case titled Father Elias Daniel & Ors v Department of Internal Administration (Police Services).
Justice Suraj Govindaraj presided over the matter, noting that the accused’s concerns about potential bias due to the SPP’s financial connection with the complainant were justified. However, the judge made it clear that this decision did not question the integrity or qualifications of Murthy. “This Court casts no doubt at all on the integrity of the Special Public Prosecutor. It is guided only by the settled rule that justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done, and, as is often said, even Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion,” Justice Govindaraj stated.
The High Court’s ruling drew on the Supreme Court’s precedent in Mukul Dalal v Union of India, emphasizing the dangers of appointing SPPs based on complainants’ preferences. The Supreme Court had previously indicated that such practices could compromise justice, especially if a powerful complainant uses legal proceedings to target adversaries. “The primacy given to the Public Prosecutor under the scheme of the Code has a social purpose, which would be lost if such appointments were made merely on the request of a private complainant,” the ruling noted.
The case pertains to the 2013 murder of Father Daniel KJ, a rector at Saint Peter’s Pontifical Seminary. Several accused individuals had raised objections about the conduct of the SPP. Initially appointed in 2014, Murthy’s role was contested and eventually revoked in 2020, due to an objection letter from one of the accused, who failed to disclose her involvement in the trial.
In response, the Archbishop of Bengaluru petitioned for Murthy’s reappointment in 2022, a request initially denied but later granted in 2023. The seminary was instructed to cover Murthy’s legal fees, which they accepted. This arrangement was challenged by the accused, leading to the High Court’s August 5 decision to annul Murthy’s appointment. The court criticized the lack of justification in the reappointment notification, calling it arbitrary.
“The re-appointment, coming after removal and after rejection, called for recorded reasons of a higher order. None are available,” the court observed. It further stated that the payment of the SPP’s fees by the complainant could reasonably be perceived as creating a bias, potentially compromising the fairness of the trial.
Additionally, the court noted Murthy’s previous representation of the Archbishop of Bengaluru, connected to the seminary, in a 2019 case, further complicating perceptions of impartiality. Ultimately, the court upheld the accused’s concerns that Murthy’s appointment could impede a fair trial.
However, the court dismissed the petitioners’ request to be notified prior to the appointment of a new SPP, stating, “Since the accused has no right to choose or to object to the prosecutor, the question of notifying or hearing the accused before the appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor does not arise, whether in the present case or as a general rule.”
More Read
Representing the petitioners were Senior Advocate MS Shyam Sundar and Advocate Dr. Vandana PL, while High Court Government Pleader Shamanth Naik represented the State. Advocate Melanic Sabastian appeared for Sadashiva Murthy, and Advocate CS Pradeep represented the seminary.
