New Delhi, January 29, 2025: In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has emphasized that the appointment of government pleaders and public prosecutors should be based strictly on merit rather than political considerations or nepotism. The apex court underscored that these positions play a crucial role in ensuring fair trials and the integrity of the criminal justice system.
A bench led by Justice J.B. Pardiwala observed that appointments based on extraneous factors, rather than professional competence, could compromise the very foundation of the justice system. The ruling came in the context of a case involving allegations of wrongful conviction due to procedural lapses and concerns regarding the conduct of the prosecution.
Judicial Intervention in Wrongful Convictions
The judgment arose from an appeal in Mahabir & Ors. vs. State of Haryana, where the Supreme Court scrutinized the procedural irregularities in a murder trial. The court found that the Punjab and Haryana High Court had wrongfully reversed the acquittal of the appellants without giving them a fair opportunity to be heard.
The apex court highlighted several legal lapses, including:
- The conviction of the appellants in a revisional jurisdiction, which is prohibited under Section 401(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
- Failure to serve notice to the accused before convicting them.
- The unlawful reliance on a police witness statement under Section 161 of the CrPC instead of considering court testimony.
- The denial of legal representation and the appointment of legal aid counsel without providing sufficient time to prepare.
Given these procedural violations, the Supreme Court not only set aside the conviction but also ordered the release of the appellants.
Sharp Criticism of the Prosecution System
The judgment brought to light serious deficiencies in the conduct of public prosecutors, with the Supreme Court noting that many criminal cases collapse due to poor cross-examination, lack of preparation, and absence of legal rigor in handling evidence.
“The role of a public prosecutor is not just to secure convictions but to ensure that justice is served,” the bench remarked. The court lamented that, in many cases, political influence dictates these appointments, leading to inefficiency and miscarriage of justice.
Call for Reforms
The ruling calls for systemic reforms to ensure that public prosecutors and government pleaders are appointed solely based on qualifications, experience, and integrity. The court suggested:
- Transparent selection processes free from political influence.
- Regular training and evaluation of prosecutors.
- Independent oversight to prevent undue pressure on public prosecutors.
Compensation for Wrongful Detention
In a landmark move, the court also ordered compensation for the three appellants who were wrongfully incarcerated for over three months. Citing precedents such as D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) and Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993), the court reaffirmed that wrongful deprivation of liberty demands monetary compensation.
Conclusion
This judgment serves as a wake-up call for the legal system to uphold fairness in the appointment of government pleaders and prosecutors. By reinforcing that merit should be the sole criterion, the Supreme Court has taken a firm stance against political favoritism, aiming to restore public faith in the criminal justice system.
This ruling is expected to have far-reaching implications, potentially leading to policy changes in the recruitment and accountability of legal professionals representing the state.
