Kottakki Srinivas Patnaik v Attorney-General: Judicial Review of Prosecutorial Discretion & Constitutional Rights
Kottakki Srinivas Patnaik applied to the General Division of the High Court of Singapore for judicial review of the Attorney-General's decision to proceed with criminal charges against him, alleging breaches of Articles 12(1), 12(2), and 35(8) of the Constitution. Patnaik sought a prohibiting order, a quashing order, and a declaration that the charges were unconstitutional. The court, presided over by Justice Kwek Mean Luck, dismissed the application, finding no prima facie case of reasonable suspicion that the prosecutorial discretion was exercised unlawfully or in breach of Patnaik's constitutional rights. The court held that Patnaik failed to demonstrate that he was treated differently from other similarly situated individuals and that the charges were not based on conclusive evidence.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Originating Application dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Constitutional
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Application for judicial review of charges against Kottakki Srinivas Patnaik was dismissed. The court found no breach of constitutional rights or abuse of prosecutorial discretion.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attorney-General | Respondent | Government Agency | Application Dismissed | Won | Gan Yingtian Andrea of Attorney-General’s Chambers Zhicong Lee of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Kottakki Srinivas Patnaik | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Kwek Mean Luck | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Gan Yingtian Andrea | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Zhicong Lee | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Lim Tean | Carson Law Chambers |
4. Facts
- Kottakki Srinivas Patnaik, the Applicant, faced criminal proceedings for corruption charges.
- The charges related to Patnaik's involvement as a bribe-giver in a private sector corruption scheme between 2011 and 2016.
- Patnaik was a director and beneficial owner of Neptune Ship Management Pte Ltd.
- The charges included five counts of corruptly giving gratification and one count of conspiring to disguise the proceeds of criminal conduct.
- The Attorney-General's position was that Patnaik gave kickbacks to Harish Singhal in exchange for contracts awarded to Neptune.
- Patnaik denied giving kickbacks and insisted that Harish had not received any money from him or Neptune.
- The Public Prosecutor also brought charges against Harish and Gopinath for their roles in the Corruption Scheme.
5. Formal Citations
- Kottakki Srinivas Patnaik v Attorney-General, Originating Application No 122 of 2023, [2023] SGHC 174
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Originating Application No 122 of 2023 filed | |
| Affidavit of Muhd Nur Hidayat Bin Amir dated | |
| Applicant’s Written Submissions dated | |
| Defendant’s Written Submissions dated | |
| Hearing held | |
| Judgment issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Article 12(1) of the Constitution
- Outcome: The court found that the Applicant had not shown that there was a prima face case of reasonable suspicion that the exercise of prosecutorial discretion against him was in breach of Art 12(1).
- Category: Constitutional
- Unlawful and/or Irrational Exercise of Prosecutorial Discretion
- Outcome: The court found that the Applicant had not shown that there was a prima facie case of reasonable suspicion that the Charges were unlawful and/or irrational.
- Category: Procedural
- Breach of Article 35(8) of the Constitution
- Outcome: The court found that there was no basis to the Applicant’s case that there was a breach of Art 35(8).
- Category: Constitutional
8. Remedies Sought
- Prohibiting Order
- Quashing Order
- Declaration
9. Cause of Actions
- Judicial Review
- Breach of Constitutional Rights
10. Practice Areas
- Public Law
- Constitutional Litigation
11. Industries
- Legal
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ramalingam Ravinthran v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 2 SLR 49 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the burden is on the applicant to prove a prima facie case of reasonable suspicion in line with the presumption of constitutionality afforded to executive actions. |
| Muhammad Ridzuan bin Mohd Ali v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 5 SLR 1222 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the burden is on the person who challenges an executive decision based on an alleged breach of one or more of the fundamental liberties enshrined in the Constitution. |
| Gobi a/l Avedian and another v Attorney-General and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 2 SLR 883 | Singapore | Cited for the requirements that must be satisfied for the court to grant permission to commence judicial review. |
| Lee Pheng Lip Ian v Chen Fun Gee and others | Unknown | Yes | [2020] 1 SLR 586 | Singapore | Referenced in Gobi a/l Avedian and another v Attorney-General and another appeal for the requirements that must be satisfied for the court to grant permission to commence judicial review. |
| Wong Souk Yee v Attorney-General | Unknown | Yes | [2019] 1 SLR 1223 | Singapore | Referenced in Gobi a/l Avedian and another v Attorney-General and another appeal for the requirements that must be satisfied for the court to grant permission to commence judicial review. |
| Xu Yuan Chen v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] 2 SLR 1131 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the success of Prayer (c) was consequential upon the success of Prayers (a) and/or (b). |
| Attorney-General v Datchinamurthy a/l Kataiah | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] SGCA 46 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the concept of equality under Art 12(1) does not mean that all persons are to be treated equally, but simply that all persons in like situations will be treated alike. |
| Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 1 SLR 809 | Singapore | Cited for the two-step test that has been developed in our local jurisprudence to determine whether executive action breaches Art 12(1). |
| Quek Hock Lye v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 2 SLR 1012 | Singapore | Cited to show that even divergent consequences faced by accused persons in the same criminal enterprise, flowing from their respective charges, were ‘not per se sufficient to found a successful Art 12(1) challenge’. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| O 24 r 5(3)(a) of the Rules of Court 2021 |
| O 24 r 5(1)(b) of the Rules of Court 2021 |
| Order 24 rule 5(1) of the ROC 2021 |
| O 24 r 5(4) of the ROC 2021 |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 6(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (2020 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 124(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (2020 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act 1992 (Cap 65A, 2000 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 47(l)(a) of the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act 1992 (Cap 65A, 2000 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 47(6)(a) of the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act 1992 (Cap 65A, 2000 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 109 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Art 12(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (2020 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Art 35(8) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (2020 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Judicial Review
- Prosecutorial Discretion
- Constitutional Rights
- Corruption Scheme
- Equal Protection
- Prima Facie Case
- Reasonable Suspicion
- Selective Investigation
- Bribe-giver
- Gratification
15.2 Keywords
- Judicial Review
- Attorney-General
- Prosecutorial Discretion
- Constitutional Rights
- Corruption
- Singapore
17. Areas of Law
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Constitutional Law
- Administrative Law