The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) that permit appointment of serving or retired judicial officers as Directors of Prosecution and serving judicial officers as Deputy Directors and Assistant Directors of Prosecution. The Court held that the plea was “misconceived” and lacked any legal basis.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi declined to entertain the petition filed by Subeesh P. S. through advocate Suvidutt M. S.
The petitioner assailed the constitutional validity of Section 20(2)(a) and 20(2)(b) of the BNSS, which provide for the appointment of judicial officers to key positions in the prosecution hierarchy.
It was contended that although the provisions were enacted to strengthen the prosecution system, they effectively undermined judicial independence by inducting members of the judiciary into executive-controlled prosecutorial posts.
According to the plea, such appointments resulted in an impermissible merger of judicial and executive functions and violated the doctrine of separation of powers, an essential feature of the Constitution.
The petitioner further argued that the impugned provisions infringed fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 and were contrary to the constitutional mandate contained in Articles 50 and 235.
The Supreme Court rejected the challenge at the threshold, holding that the petition was misconceived and devoid of legal foundation.
The bench did not find any merit in the contention that the statutory provisions violated the principle of separation of powers or judicial independence.
Dismissing the writ petition, the Court upheld the validity of the BNSS provisions permitting appointment of serving or retired judicial officers to prosecutorial posts and refused to interfere with the statutory framework.
