Karnataka High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Appointment Of Complainant's Personal Lawyer As Public Prosecutor In SC/ST Case

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by an accused charged under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the Deputy Commissioner's decision to appoint the complainant's private lawyer as a special public prosecutor in the case.

Justice K.Natarajan said the SC/ST Rules empower the Deputy Commissioner to appoint an eminent lawyer on behalf of the victim under clause (5) of Rule 4.

"Therefore, it cannot be misunderstood that appointing an advocate on the request of the victim is against the SC/ST Act and Rules and the Government is burdened by spending more money towards the advocate fee, when the State itself wants to double safeguard the interest of the members of the SC/ST category people by preventing them from the harassment as well as atrocities over the SC/ST members."

The court added that the legislature is very much aware of the atrocities on the SC/ST people and in order to defend their cases, it cannot be expected to appoint an ordinary advocate who may have only a few years of practice.

"The SC/ST Rules provides appointment of an eminent senior advocate and therefore, the downtrodden people may be able to prosecute the matter against the upper caste people effectively in the Court of law."

The petitioners Cheriyan M C and others had approached the court questioning the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Chikkamagaluru, dated 03.04.2021 whereby advocate B Satish Chandra Kalavarkar was appointed as Special Prosecutor in the 2020 case. They submitted that Kalavarkar had represented the complainant in a civil case and also in the bail proceedings of the SC/ST case.

It was further contended that the government has already appointed a panel of advocates on behalf of the prosecution and the public prosecutor has already been appointed as per Rule 4(1) of SC/ST Rules.

"Respondent No.4 [Kalavarkar] is not a Senior Advocate as contemplated under Rule 4(5) of SC/ST Rules. The Government of India has to spend more amount for appointing advocates. Hence, prayed for setting aside the order," the petitioners argued.

Findings:

The bench noted Rule 4(1) of the SC/ST Rules, empowers the government to appoint the eminent Senior advocates as panel advocates for Special Courts trying the SC/ST offences.

"Sub-Rule (5) to Rule 4 of the SC/ST Rules empowers that the District Magistrate or Sub- Divisional Magistrate may also appoint an eminent Senior Advocate for conducting cases in special Court irrespective of the advocates appointed under Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 4 of the SC/ST Rules."

The court said the District Magistrate or the Deputy Commissioner of a district are empowered to appoint any eminent senior advocate as special Counsel for prosecuting the matter on behalf of the victims for the offences under the provisions of the SC/ST Act and Rules.

Disagreeing with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Sunil Grover Vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi, which was relied upon by the petitioners, the bench said:

"When the legislature has framed the Special Acts and the Rules to safeguard the interest of the victims/downtrodden people of the offences under the SC/ST Act, denying the opportunity of appointment of the Counsel is against the object of the legislature in enacting Special Act and Rules."

The court said Kalavarkar is a better advocate to defend the case of the complainant as he already has represented them in the bail matter of the petitioner. "Therefore, the petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed," it said.

Case Title: CHERIYAN M C & Others v. STATE BY JAYAPURA POLICE STATION