2G Case: Centre Had Authority To Appoint Special Public Prosecutors; Appointments Do Not Pollute Filing Of Appeals: CBI Tells Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court on Friday continued hearing the appeals in the 2G cases.

A single judge bench of Justice Brijesh Sethi was hearing submissions on point of grant of "leave to appeal" to CBI in its appeals against the acquittal of all accused in 2G case.

The prerogative to appoint Special Public Prosecutors vested with the Central Government, after completing of trial, submitted ASG Sanjay Jain while defending the leaves to appeal.

The accused who are acquitted have averred that appeals were not filed in accordance with law. 

Advocate Vijay Aggarwal argued against the approval which was granted by the Centre for appointments and said that it is to be looked into by the Court under High Court Rules

"In the Whole appeal, there is no Foot print of Mr. Mehta (Solicitor General)," said Aggarwal.

It was argued that 2G being a special class of case, appeal could only be filed through and under the signature of a Special Prosecutor notified for the case.

There was no appointment at all for 2G appeals. They have to be beyond doubt as prosecution, much like Ceaser's wife, argued Aggarwal.

As the notification on the appointment of then Solicitor General Tushar Mehta was in force before the filing of the appeal, it has been contended that it should have been done through him and not Sanjeev Bhandari.

In this context, the appointment of SG Mehta is challenged on the ground that his appointment was under Section 24(8) CrPC. However, the mandatory requirement of consultation with High Court for appointments under Section 24(1) CrPC was not followed.

ASG Sanjay Jain responded by stating that there was no need for the Centre to consult the High Court for appointments.

"Even the appointment of a prosecutor is to be in Consultation of the HC? If we see the language of section 24(1) & 24(8), it is discernible that Consultation is not required," added Jain.

ASG Jain further submitted that for the sake of this argument, SC Judgements had been forgotten. "In ordinary course, the SPP is appointed by Govt but treating 2G case as special case, the SC under Article 142 so desired that the PP will be appointed by SC," he said.

Procedure of appointment not taken as concern of court. What procedure resorted to, Govt's prerogative. For special class of cases, govt may require appointment of special PP.

He further stated that there was an inherent presumption in favour of a prosecutor who presented the appeal and there could be no allegation that there was non-application of mind.

Arguing that the the argument had been creatively brought in, the ASG stated that the Government can make the SPP appointments as it considers fit.

"No body has been able to point out how it pollutes the filing of appeal," he argued.

The hearing will continue on October 12.

Senior Advocates Sidharth Luthra and N Hariharan, Advocates Vijay Aggarwal & Advocate DP Singh also appeared in the case.