A fresh legal battle has emerged in Mumbai as multiple murder convict Vijay Palande has petitioned the court to disqualify BJP leader and newly appointed Rajya Sabha MP Ujjwal Nikam from continuing as a special public prosecutor (SPP) in his case. The plea has prompted the court to formally seek responses from Nikam himself, as well as the state of Maharashtra, to address the concerns raised by the accused. The development has reignited debate over whether Nikam’s simultaneous role as an SPP and a Member of Parliament creates a constitutional conflict of interest.
Ujjwal Nikam, who has long been regarded as one of Maharashtra’s most prominent prosecutors, first assumed the position of SPP in 2012. However, his trajectory briefly shifted in April 2024 when he was announced as the BJP candidate for the Mumbai North Central Lok Sabha constituency. Following electoral defeat, Nikam was reinstated to his prosecutorial duties. Later, in July 2024, his political career took another turn when President Droupadi Murmu nominated him to the Rajya Sabha, further intensifying the scrutiny surrounding his dual roles in the judiciary and legislature.
This is not the first instance in which Palande, who is currently serving a life sentence for the high-profile murders of Delhi businessman Arun Tikku and film producer Karankumar Kakkad, has sought Nikam’s removal. In October 2024, he filed a similar application challenging Nikam’s reappointment, but the Mumbai Sessions Court rejected it. Now, in his renewed plea, Palande has invoked Article 102(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, which disqualifies an MP from holding an “office of profit” under the Union or State government unless explicitly exempted by law. According to him, the position of an SPP squarely falls under this category.
Palande has argued that while MPs who are practicing advocates may pursue private cases, Nikam’s work as an SPP is different because the appointment is directly made under the authority of the state government. He claimed that allowing Nikam to continue prosecuting his case not only raises constitutional concerns but also compromises fairness, turning the trial into what he described as a “David and Goliath war.” He expressed apprehension that Nikam’s political clout and influence could create a one-sided process that undermines the principles of justice.
In response, Nikam has indicated that he will submit a formal reply opposing Palande’s application by September 26. He has maintained that serving as an SPP does not amount to holding an office of profit and that his appointment does not violate constitutional provisions. Nikam has previously stressed that his role as a prosecutor is fundamentally distinct from political office and should not disqualify him from continuing in both capacities.
The case is being closely watched not only for its immediate implications on the murder trial but also for the broader constitutional questions it raises. At the heart of the dispute lies the issue of whether a sitting MP can simultaneously hold a prosecutorial role under the state, and whether this duality threatens the balance between politics, governance, and the justice system. With Nikam set to file his reply soon, the court’s ruling could potentially set an important precedent in defining the boundaries of the office of profit under Indian law.
