Back
DEVI PRASAD SINGH, SATISH CHANDRA
SADHANA SHARMA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U. P. – Respondent
The principle that a Public Prosecutor must act independently of executive influence is fundamental to ensuring a fair and impartial justice system. It emphasizes that prosecutors are officers of the court, tasked with administering justice without undue pressure from the government or other external entities. This independence is crucial for maintaining public confidence, safeguarding the rights of the accused, and upholding the rule of law. The legal framework mandates that prosecutors should be appointed and operate without interference, ensuring their decisions are based solely on legal merits and evidence. Such independence prevents misuse of prosecutorial power for political or personal gains, thereby promoting fairness, objectivity, and integrity in criminal proceedings. It also ensures that the prosecution functions as a true minister of justice, accountable to the court and the law, rather than to the executive arm of the government (!) (!) (!) . Upholding this principle is essential for the effective functioning of the criminal justice system and for reinforcing the separation of powers within the constitutional scheme.
Hon’ble Devi Prasad Singh, J.—Present writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, have been preferred challenging the constitutional validity of Section 2 of U.P. Act No. 18 of 1991 i.e., Code of Criminal Procedure (U.P. Amendment) Act, 1991, whereby, sub-section (1) of Section 24 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been amended and sub-section (4), (5), (6) of Section 24 of Code of Criminal Procedure (in short CrPC), has been omitted alongwith the provisions contained in sub-section (7) by which sub-section (6) has been referred to.
2. The petitioner has also assailed the Circular dated 13.8.2008 by which the Government of U.P., has amended the L.R. Manual to the extent it provides the consultation with the District Judge mandatory for appointment on the post of District Government Counsels alongwith consequential action.
3. The present writ petitions were part of the bunch of writ petitions whereby, the Circular dated 13.8.2008 has been impugned, the leading one of which is Writ Petition No. 7851 (M/B) of 2008: U.P. Shaskiya Adhivakta Kalyan Samiti v. State of U.P., decided by separate judgment and order dated 6.1.2012. Keeping in view the fact that vires
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
