Compliance with statutory consultation processes is essential for the appointment of Special Public Prosecutors in POCSO cases.

J U D G M E N T

Dated this the 10th day of February, 2021 S. Manikumar, C. J.

Before the writ court, petitioner has sought for a mandamus, directing the respondents therein, to appoint Special Public Prosecutors in the Special Fast Track Court (SFTC), Pathanamthitta, for POCSO cases, from the list of 17 Advocates, prepared initially.

2. Petitioner has also sought for a direction, to the respondents therein, to appoint more experienced lawyers, as Special Public Prosecutors, for POCSO cases, in compliance with Section 24 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

3. Though several grounds have been made in support of the prayers sought for, after considering the rival submissions and statutory provisions under Section 24 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Code and Section 32 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, writ court by judgment dated 19.08.2020 in W. P. (C) No. 14771 of 2020, declined to grant the reliefs sought for by the petitioner, as hereunder:-

“It is not in dispute that the process of consultation between the District Collector and the District Judge is liable to be carried out even in the matter of appointment of Special Public Prosecutors under the POCSO Act. The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners with regard to the qualification and length of practice, therefore, cannot be sustained in view of the fact that a due consultative process had been carried out and the qualifications under Section 32 had also been taken note of while conducting the selections as per the procedure provided under Sections 24(4) and 24(5) of the Cr.P.C. The contention of the petitioners that there were two lists forwarded by the District Collector also therefore is not sustainable in view of the explanation provided in the statement filed by the Special Government Pleader. It appears that a due consultative process between the District Collector and the District Judge had occurred on 17.6.2020 and 18.6.2020 and that a list of selected candidates had been forwarded to the Government by the District Collector after such consultation. If that be so, I am of the opinion that the procedure as provided under Section 32 of the POCSO Act read with Section 24(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code has been duly complied with in the matter of conduct of selection. Ext.P10 would also show that the applicant who had been selected and appointed was a person who was included in the list of applicants initially forwarded by the District Judge pursuant to Ext.P1 itself and therefore the further contentions raised as against inclusion of persons who submitted their applications later would not be relevant any more. Further, I am of the opinion that the details of the consultation between the District Judge and the District Collector and the rationale behind their excluding or including any person in the select list are not matters which are justiciable before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

In the above view of the matter and in view of the finding that consultation had been carried out between the District Collector and the District Judge as provided in the Cr.P.C., I am of the opinion that the prayers sought for cannot be granted. Writ petitions fail and the same are accordingly dismissed.”

4. Being aggrieved, instant writ appeal is filed.

5. Material on record discloses that, writ petition has been filed on 21.07.2020. However, subsequently, Government of Kerala, Home (C) Department, have issued a notification, G. O. (Rt) No. 1728/2020/Home dated 05.08.2020, appointing 9 Special Public Prosecutors, in the Fast Track Special Courts, constituted, exclusively for the conduct of rape cases, and cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (Central Act 32 of 2012).

6. Earlier, when a Public