Back
Seeks Response on Plea Against Police Chief Role in Kerala Prosecutor Selection
The has issued notice on a challenge to Kerala's procedure for appointing Public Prosecutors, which allows the District Police Chief to participate in the selection process, a move the petitioner claims violates the statutory mandate of .
A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta on heard the filed by advocate against the 's judgment that upheld the state's revised circular on prosecutor appointments.
The Legal Question: Who Can Be Consulted?
The core issue is the interpretation of
, which states that the District Magistrate shall prepare a panel of names for appointment as Public Prosecutors
"in consultation with the Sessions Judge."
The petitioner contends that this provision does not permit the involvement of the District Police Chief, who heads the investigating agency.
The 's Ruling
The case traces back to a petition by the , which led to a judgment directing the state to frame guidelines in conformity with Section 18 BNSS, giving "primacy" to the Sessions Judge's opinion. The state subsequently issued a circular in authorizing the District Collector to invite applications and prepare a preliminary panel. A revised draft circular in introduced consultation with both the Sessions Judge and the District Police Chief.
The High Court, in its judgment, approved the circular with one modification—replacing "" with "" for the Sessions Judge's opinion—but rejected the challenge to the Police Chief's participation, holding that the Police Chief's inputs could assist in understanding the antecedents of candidates and that the opinion was not conclusive.
Petitioner's Submissions: Independence at Stake
Senior Advocate argued that the inclusion of the District Police Chief expands the consultative process beyond what the statute permits. He relied on two precedents:
- : When a statute requires an appointment to be made in consultation with a specified authority, the prescribed process cannot be expanded by adding another authority.
- : The prosecutor's office must remain independent of the police department and officers responsible for investigation.
The petition argued that
"by permitting an executive functionary heading the investigating agency to participate in the selection of Public Prosecutors, the
compromises the
of the prosecutorial system and dilutes the
contemplated by Parliament."
Kumar also objected to the District Collector preparing an initial panel before consultation with the Sessions Judge, arguing that this makes the judicial consultation ineffective.
"The Sessions Judge is reduced to commenting on candidates already shortlisted by the executive instead of participating in the identification of candidates at the initial stage,"
the plea contended.
The Court's Response
During the hearing, Justice Vikram Nath questioned:
"The Rule or the provision says that the District Judge and the District Magistrate, correct? So if they want to have some further inputs, what is wrong in that?"
This query suggested the court was considering whether additional consultation, if purely advisory, could be acceptable.
Despite this, the court issued notice, returnable in four weeks. The bench also indicated that there was no need to expressly record that appointments made during the pendency of the case would be subject to the outcome, as such appointments would automatically be subject to the final decision.
Key Observations
"The office of the prosecutor has to remain independent of the investigating agency."– Petitioner's reliance on .
"The inclusion of the District Police Chief in the process of appointing the public prosecutor is contrary to the that the prosecutor office should be independent of the police department."– Petition.
"If they want to have some further inputs, what is wrong in that?"– Justice Vikram Nath, questioning the petitioner's objection.
Conclusion and Implications
The 's decision to issue notice indicates that the matter warrants serious examination. The case will test the boundaries of the under Section 18 BNSS and the extent to which the executive and police authorities can be involved in the selection of Public Prosecutors. The outcome could have far-reaching implications for the independence of the prosecutorial system across India.
The State of Kerala is now required to respond within four weeks, after which the petition will be heard on its merits.
