Petition Challenges Ujjwal Nikam’s Rajya Sabha Nomination, Cites Office of Profit

X: @vivekbhavsar

Mumbai: A petition has been filed before the President of India, Smt. Droupadi Murmu, seeking the disqualification of noted prosecutor Ujjwal Deorao Nikam from the Rajya Sabha on the ground that his nomination violates the constitutional bar against holding an office of profit. The petition, submitted by Advocate Ulhas T. Naik, a lawyer, whistle-blower and social activist, has invoked Article 103 of the Constitution of India and requested that the matter be referred to the Election Commission of India (ECI) for its binding opinion.

According to the petition, Nikam, who was nominated to the Rajya Sabha under Article 80(1)(a) on 24 July 2025, continues to hold the statutory office of Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) under the Government of Maharashtra, an appointment made under Section 18(8) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The petitioner argues that the office of Special Public Prosecutor is a government-controlled and remunerated post, making it an “office of profit” under Article 102(1)(a) of the Constitution.

The plea highlights that the role of SPP is not included in the exempted list under the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959, thereby directly attracting disqualification. Nikam’s continuing representation of the State in nearly 17 ongoing criminal cases, including the Santosh Deshmukh murder case in Beed and the Kalyan minor girl rape-murder case, while simultaneously serving as a lawmaker, is cited as a glaring conflict of interest and a breach of the doctrine of separation of powers.

The petitioner further questions the constitutional propriety of Nikam’s nomination, arguing that Article 80(1)(a) envisages individuals of eminence in literature, science, art and social service, not practising prosecutors or political appointees. His Rajya Sabha entry has been branded a “political backdoor arrangement” following his electoral defeat in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections from Mumbai North Central. The plea relies on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India (2006) to support this interpretation.

Also Read: Patriotism vs. Profit: The WCL 2025 India–Pakistan Controversy

Beyond constitutional arguments, the petition also raises issues of professional misconduct. It recalls Nikam’s controversial 2015 “Biryani” remark about Ajmal Kasab, selective prosecution in the David Headley and Mohammed Afroz cases, concessions granted in MCOCA trials, and derogatory remarks against journalists. These actions, the petitioner contends, undermine fairness in criminal proceedings and amount to abuse of prosecutorial discretion, contrary to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P. (1991).

To strengthen the case, the petition cites the Supreme Court ruling in Jaya Bachchan v. Union of India (2006), which held that holding an office of profit automatically attracts disqualification. It argues that these precedents establish that Ujjwal Nikam’s continuing role as Special Public Prosecutor is incompatible with his position as a Rajya Sabha Member of Parliament.

Advocate Naik insists the petition is filed in public interest with no political motives, aimed solely at preserving constitutional integrity, transparency and public trust. If accepted, this challenge could open a high-stakes constitutional battle testing the legitimacy of Ujjwal Nikam’s nomination to the Rajya Sabha and the broader definition of “office of profit” under Indian law.