The Karnataka High Court has quashed the state government's notification re-appointing Sadashiva Murthy as Special Public Prosecutor in the 2013 murder case of Fr. Thomas K.J., former Rector of St. Peter's Pontifical Seminary, Bengaluru.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj held that the appointment suffered from non-application of mind and gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias, since the seminary itself was directed to pay the prosecutor's fees.
Background Of The Case
Fr. Thomas K.J. was found dead in a semi-nude condition at the seminary premises on April 1, 2013. A case was registered at Yeshwanthpur Police Station under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. Following investigation, three priests — Fr. Elias Daniel, Fr. William Patrick and Carmel Peter @ Peter — were arrested and chargesheeted, and the matter came to be registered as S.C. No.1439/2014.
Sadashiva Murthy, a former Director of Prosecution, was first appointed Special Public Prosecutor in 2014 at the seminary's request. He was removed in 2020 after complaints of delay, and later re-appointment requests were even rejected by the government in March 2023. Despite this, a fresh notification dated September 15, 2023 reinstated him, prompting the accused priests to move the High Court challenging the order.
Arguments Before The Court
Senior counsel M.S. Shyam Sundar, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the notification lacked any recorded reasons or special circumstances, and that Murthy's remuneration being borne by the seminary created an improper advocate-client relationship. He also pointed out that Murthy had earlier represented the Archbishop of Bengaluru personally, raising fears of partisan conduct.
Counsel for the seminary and the State defended the appointment, citing Murthy's decades of experience and the case's sensitivity, and argued that courts should not interfere with the government's discretionary policy decisions.
Court's Observations
The Court noted that Murthy's competence was "beyond doubt," but said the challenge was to the manner of appointment, not the man. Examining government records, the bench found they showed only the seminary's request and its acceptance — nothing more.
The Court, relying on its earlier ruling in K.V. Shiva Reddy vs. State of Karnataka, held that
"such direct payment creates an advocate-client relationship, a personal element from which the Public Prosecutor must be considered immune... he does not have a dual capacity."
Applying this principle, the bench found the fee arrangement in the present case objectionable.
It further remarked,
"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."
The Court held that fee payment must route through the State via advance deposit, not directly from the complainant, and that the re-appointment—coming after removal and an earlier express rejection—needed stronger justification than what the records showed.
However, the Court rejected the plea for a general direction requiring accused persons to be notified or heard before any Special Public Prosecutor's appointment, holding that no such right exists in law.
The High Court allowed the petition in part, quashing the September 15, 2023 notification appointing Sadashiva Murthy as Special Public Prosecutor. It left it open to the State to continue prosecution through the regular Public Prosecutor or appoint a fresh Special Public Prosecutor with recorded reasons, ensuring any fees are routed through a prescribed State agency rather than paid directly by the complainant.
Case Title: Fr. Elias Daniel & Others vs. Department of Internal Administration & Others
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 1452 of 2024 (GM-RES)
-300x169.webp)
