Denial of fair trial is crucifixion of human rights

J. Jayalalithaa v. State of Karnataka, (2014) 2 SCC 401
Constitution of India
Arts. 21, 14, 309 proviso, 233, 234, 235, 32 and 142 - Fair and speedy trial in criminal case - Relief that may be granted
to ensure expedited conclusion of trial - Prosecutor and Judge - Directions in respect of - Relief that trial nearing
completion may be brought to early conclusion by passing appropriate orders to enable Special Public Prosecutor (SPP)
and Presiding Judge to remain unchanged - Tenability - In the interest of fair and speedy trial, writ petitioners (accused
persons being prosecuted for disproportionate assets under PC Act, 1988) seeking relief of: (a) setting aside of allegedly
mala fide termination of appointment of R-4 as Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) when trial was nearing completion, and
(b) direction under Art. 142 of Constitution to extend the service of Special Judge beyond the age of superannuation to
enable him to conclude the trial - Entitlement to such relief - Mala fide termination of R-4 as SPP, held, cannot be

sustained and therefore, set aside - Reasons given by respondent State for removing SPP appear to be rather unusual -
Eligibility, suitability or credibility of R-4 have never been questioned nor challenged - Further, the mala fide intention is
apparent from the facts, that after the change in Government there was a sudden change of opinion regarding SPP for
no discernible legally sustainable reason - There being relevant law to deal with the matter of extension of tenure of
Special Judge, said issue remanded to administrative side of High Court to expeditiously decide as to whether in the
interest of speedy trial, tenure of Special Judge could be extended to conclude the trial (in exercise of High Court's power
under Art. 235 r/w relevant State Judicial Service Rules) - Further, the remand is appropriate as the Supreme Court
should not pass an order in violation of statutory provisions by exercising power under Art. 142, 
Advocates
Government Law Officers/Counsel/Pleader
Special Public Prosecutors - Revocation of appointment of, for mala fide/extraneous considerations adversely affecting
criminal trial - Impermissibility, 
Statute Law
General Clauses Acts
S. 21 - Power to issue, include, amend, vary or rescind, notifications, orders, rules or bye-laws - Termination of
appointment of Special Public Prosecutor on mala fide/extraneous considerations adversely affecting criminal trial -
Impermissibility,
Estoppel, Acquiescence and Waiver
Acquiescence
Appointment of Special Public Prosecutor - Government appointing R-4 as SPP even though his name was not in the
list of names suggested by the Government and his name originated from the Chief Justice of the High Court, and
Government did not revoke it for seven months - Government (after change in Government) terminating his appointment
thereafter on irrelevant grounds with mala fide intentions, held, is not sustainable, 
Doctrines and Maxims
Expressio unius est exclusio alterius
If a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular way, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other
manner - Applied - Therefore, matter remanded to High Court to exercise its jurisdiction on the administrative side to
decide the issue of extension of terms of Special Judge, under Art. 235 of the Constitution r/w 2004 Rules - Exercise of
jurisdiction under Art. 142 of Constitution, declined, 
Criminal Law
Public Accountability, Vigilance and Prevention of Corruption

Special Public Prosecutor - Senior lawyer directed by Supreme Court to be appointed by State Government in
consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court - Onus to consult and party that may raise grievance as to lack of
effective consultation - Held, it is the duty of State Government to make effective consultation with the Chief Justice and
not vice versa - Therefore, State Government cannot be the aggrieved person in case consultation is not effective -
Rather the Chief Justice has a right to be effectively consulted - Further, as it is the State Government which finally
issues the notification appointing SPP, it cannot raise the issue that the appointment was without effective consultation
and would be estopped therefrom - Herein, the State Government raised the issue after 7 months of appointment of SPP
- Government thus voluntarily acquiesced in the appointment of R-4 as SPP and is now not entitled to raise the
grievance that there was no effective consultation, despite the fact, even though the name of R-4 to be appointed as SPP
originated from the Chief Justice, (2014) 2 SCC 401-F
Administrative Law
Administrative Action
Exercise of power/discretionary power - Standard and principles of governance and for exercise of discretionary power,
indicated - Held, State should not change its stand merely because another political party has come to power - A
decision may look legitimate but if the reasons are not based on values but to achieve popular accolade, the decision
cannot be allowed to operate - Government should rise above vested interests - Governance should be on the
touchstone of justice, equity and fair play, 
Criminal Trial
Fair and speedy trial is an important facet of a democratic polity, the rule of law and criminal jurisprudence - Denial of
fair trial is crucifixion of human rights - Courts cannot turn a blind eye to vexatious or oppressive conduct that occurs in
relation to criminal proceedings, 
Criminal Trial
Arguments/Submissions - Warrant cases under PC Act - Arguments/submissions after closure of evidence - Party
entitled to begin arguments - Defence commencing arguments first, held, not invalid - Thus allegation of improper trial on
this ground is not tenable - However question not decided conclusively,