4 min readMumbaiSep 12, 2025 01:03 AM IST
First published on: Sep 12, 2025 at 01:03 AM IST
OVER TWO months after he was nominated to Rajya Sabha by the President, an accused has questioned in the Mumbai City Civil and Sessions Court how Ujjwal Nikam can continue as a special public prosecutor in criminal cases representing the state. The court has sought a response from the state and Nikam on the plea and adjourned the case till the plea challenging his appointment is decided.
Nikam became an MP in July after being nominated by the President. Accused Vijay Palande, who is facing trials in three cases of murder, approached the court stating that Nikam continuing to hold the position of the special public prosecutor (SPP) for the state of Maharashtra, ‘raises serious Constitutional concerns’. He has cited Article 102 (1) (a) of the Constitution on the disqualifications for membership of Members of Parliament.
“A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of either House of Parliament…if he holds any office of profit under the Government of India or the Government of any State, other than an office declared by Parliament by law not to disqualify its holder,” the cited provision states.
Palande’s application states that in the murder case where he is an accused, Nikam is the SPP from 2013. “This position is appointed by the state government and is paid from public exchequers. Therefore, it clearly qualifies as an ‘Office of profit under the government of a state’,” the plea says, adding that if he continues to serve as the SPP, while holding the position of an MP, he will ‘be liable to be disqualified’.
Nikam said that the special public prosecutor is not an office of profit. “Unlike the prosecutor who is under the government, a special public prosecutor is appointed on contractual basis and is not an office of profit,” he said. He said that he will be responding to the plea in detail in court.
Palande in his plea said that Nikam can handle private cases, as have several MPs who are advocates engaged in private court practice but not the SPP which is under the state government. The plea further says that Palande has a strong apprehension that ‘due to the clout and might’ of Nikam, the case will be a ‘one-sided affair’ and a ‘David
and Goliath war’. His plea sought that appropriate orders be passed to seek Nikam’s resignation and make fresh appointment of an SPP in the case.
Nikam, who has represented the state government in several important cases in the state, had also contested the Lok Sabha elections as the BJP’s candidate from the Mumbai North Central Lok Sabha constituency last year. Before contesting, Nikam had resigned from 29 cases in the state, including the cases against Palande, and the 26/11 terror
trial. However, after he lost the elections, he returned to these cases as SPP. Palande had then too challenged Nikam’s reinstatement in his case, stating that as he had contested as a ‘political candidate’, the trial may not be fair. The court had, however, rejected the plea and Nikam continued as the SPP.
Palande, who was convicted previously for two murders, is currently facing three trials for the alleged murders of Delhi-based businessman Arunkumar Tikku and aspiring movie producer Karan Kakkad, and a third one where the identity of the ‘victim’ is yet to be established. The three cases are pending trial. Nikam is the SPP in the first two cases.
The court will hear the plea on September 26.
The court will hear the plea on September 26.
Share
