Multiple murder accused challenges Ujjwal Nikam’s return as special public prosecutor

MUMBAI: Vijay Palande, an accused in multiple murder cases, who had recently moved a sessions court seeking permission to allow him to appear for a documentary titled ‘State vs Vijay Palande’, has formally challenged the appointment of advocate Ujjwal Nikam as the special public prosecutor (SPP) in his case.
Nikam had contested the recently concluded Lok Sabha election as BJP candidate from the Mumbai North Central Lok Sabha constituency in which he lost to Congress’ Varsha Gaikwad by more than 16,000 votes.
Claiming that Nikam’s reappointment was made with malafide intentions, Palande’s plea alleged Nikam will now act for BJP’s agenda and “he may go to any extent for getting false conviction in famous high-profile cases which is against the fundamental rights of the accused and thereby compromising the fairness of the judicial process.”
During a court hearing on Wednesday, counsel Prashant Pandey, representing the notorious gangster, argued that Nikam’s appointment should be cancelled on the grounds of a conflict of interest, asserting that it jeopardises the principles of justice and the fundamental rights of the accused.
Palande is a notorious criminal involved in multiple high-profile cases of murder and organised crime. Palande also underwent major plastic surgery in a Bangkok clinic in 2004, in a bid to conceal his identity and to fool the police. He is known for his ability to evade capture, using multiple aliases and escaping custody. (SEE BOX)
Advocate Ujjwal Nikam, a seasoned lawyer with an extensive career spanning over three decades, was recently appointed as the special public prosecutor in numerous high-profile cases. His track record includes prosecuting notorious cases such as that of Ajmal Kasab, the Pakistani terrorist involved in the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks, as well as the Shakti Mills gangrape case and the rape and murder case of a young girl in Kopardi, Ahmednagar. Notably, he also handled the murder case of BJP leader Pramod Mahajan.
Palande’s counsel Pandey pointed out that no request for Nikam’s appointment had been made by any of the accused in the case, questioning the necessity of such a move. He argued that Nikam’s immediate appointment following the elections raises suspicions about its motivations, suggesting that it may be driven by political considerations rather than a genuine pursuit of justice.
The counsel also highlighted the fact that Palande is not a voter of the BJP and is a significant opponent of an acquaintance of Nikam. This, according to the counsel, further exacerbates the potential for bias, making it unlikely that Nikam could approach the case impartially.
Pandey noted that Nikam recently resigned from 29 pending cases as SPP, which took place just a day before the announcement of his candidacy by the BJP for a position in the Law and Judiciary department, which raises additional questions about his motivations. The department accepted his resignation and stated that no SPP would be necessary for those cases, implying that the public prosecutor (PP) would suffice.
The court is yet to render a decision on this application, which underscores critical concerns about the integrity of the judicial process, particularly in politically charged cases. The outcome holds significant implications not only for Palande but also for the broader discourse surrounding the intersection of politics and justice in India.