Delhi HC judge nominee’s record includes conviction for fatal crash

There is nothing in the law that bars Amit Prasad from holding a judge’s office, but the recommendation itself is rare.

The recommendation of advocate Amit Prasad for appointment as a judge of the Delhi High Court comes with an unusual footnote in his professional record: a 2011 conviction in a fatal road accident case dating back to 1996 in which a Delhi trial court found him guilty of causing the death of a cyclist through rash and negligent driving before releasing him on probation of good conduct.

The Delhi High Court is presently functioning with 44 judges against a sanctioned strength of 60. (File photo)

He was a law student at the time; he entered the legal profession in 1998. There is nothing in the law that bars Prasad from holding a judge’s office, but the recommendation itself is rare.

Court records accessed by HT show that Prasad, who was the special public prosecutor in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case and the Shraddha Walkar case, was convicted by a Delhi trial court under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code for causing death by rash and negligent driving in connection with an accident that took place on May 12, 1996 near Khel Gaon Marg in south Delhi.

Prasad is among the eight lawyers whose names are currently under consideration for elevation to the Delhi High Court as part of an appointments exercise that has already witnessed an unusual reworking of recommendations by the high court collegium.

A judgment delivered on June 6, 2011 by metropolitan magistrate Gaurav Rao held that the prosecution had successfully established that Prasad was driving a Maruti car in a rash and negligent manner when he struck the cyclist, who later succumbed to his injuries.

“The prosecution has successfully brought home the guilt against the accused,” held the court while convicting Prasad. The trial court also noted that the injured cyclist was taken to AIIMS by Prasad after the accident and that his name appeared in the medico-legal case papers.

Court records further show that Prasad was on June 9, 2011 released on probation of good conduct under the Probation of Offenders Act instead of being sent to prison.

People aware of the matter said Prasad had disclosed details of the conviction, the probation order and the completion of the probation period in the material submitted during the judgeship selection process. According to them, these disclosures formed part of the record considered by the Delhi High Court collegium, comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyay and justices V Kameswar Rao and Nitin W Sambre, before it recommended his name for elevation.

Queries sent to Prasad’s office seeking his response remained unanswered till the time of publication, as he was said to be travelling.

Under Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, a person dealt with under the legislation does not suffer disqualifications attached to a conviction under any law. Courts have, however, consistently held that the provision does not obliterate the conviction itself. Prasad is a well-known criminal lawyer.

The development may add a fresh layer of controversy to the Delhi High Court’s ongoing judgeship selection exercise, which has already witnessed an unusual mid-course correction with the withdrawal of one recommended name and the addition of two others after the recommendations had been formally sent to constitutional consultees.

Prasad’s name was part of a list originally comprising advocates Sameer Vashist, Sandeep Mahapatra, Sandeep Sharma, Ravi Prakash, Amit Prasad, Kadambri Singh and Prachi Mishra that was recommended by the Delhi High Court collegium.

As first reported by HT earlier this month, the collegium subsequently took the unprecedented step of withdrawing Mishra’s recommendation after the proposals had already been circulated to constitutional consultees and simultaneously added senior advocate Aseem Chawla and advocate Geetanjali Malviya Ojha to the list. The reasons behind the withdrawal of Mishra’s name could not be immediately ascertained.

These recommendations are currently under consideration of the Union and Delhi governments for gathering inputs on the candidates. The collegium of the Supreme Court will later review the recommendations, together with the Intelligence Bureau reports, before forwarding them to the Union government for final appointments.

The Delhi High Court is presently functioning with 44 judges against a sanctioned strength of 60.