State Appears To Be Appointing Govt Pleaders/Public Prosecutors Based On Their Proximity To Ruling Dispensation: Madras High Court Calls It "Deeply Disturbing"

The Petition before the High Court was filed by an accused who was tried in a case registered under Section 376 IPC read with Sections 3(2)(v), 3(1)(w)(i) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, by the Sessions Judge, Special Court.

The Single Bench of Justice B. Pugalendhi held, “It is deeply disturbing to note that the State appears to be appointing Government Pleaders / Public Prosecutors / Law Officers not on merit, but on the basis of their proximity and allegiance to the ruling dispensation. Such appointments, at times, extend even to individuals whose only apparent qualification is their involvement in menial political activities, such as affixing posters during elections. This practice strikes at the very root of professional standards expected of Law Officers.”

“Be that as it may, considering the manner in which the Government has slept on the recommendation of the Director of Prosecutor, without taking a call on the removal of the Law Officer concerned, this Court suo moto impleads the District Collector, Theni and the Secretary to the Government, Home Department, Chennai, as parties to this petition”, the order read.

Advocate S.Ramanathan represented the Petitioner, while Government Advocate A.S.Abul Kalaam Azad represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The case of the prosecution was that when the victim, who belongs to the Scheduled Caste community, went out to attend nature’s call, the petitioner punched and pushed her to the floor and attempted to commit rape on her. A complaint was lodged immediately regarding the occurrence, and the victim girl was also subjected to a medical examination. The petitioner was convicted for the offences under Section 376 read with Section 511 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(w)(i) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the petitioner had previously filed an application seeking suspension of his sentence and the same was dismissed by the High Court. It was noticed that considering the manner in which the prosecution had conducted the case before the trial court, the High Court, while dismissing the earlier application, had also directed the Director of Prosecution to take appropriate action against the concerned Special Public Prosecutor, who conducted the trial.

The prosecution had earlier filed a report before the Court admitting the manner in which the prosecution was conducted by the concerned Public Prosecutor, who represented the case and stated that the concerned Prosecutor had not even raised any questions based on the Accident Register issued by the Doctor. He had made a recommendation to the Government that the said Special Public Prosecutor, who conducted the trial in a negligent manner, may be removed from his service.

The Bench reaffirmed that the State has a duty to defend the victim by appointing efficient Government Pleaders / Law Officers. The Bench also noted that the Secretaries to Government, who are involved in the selection process of the Law Officers, are sailing along with the Government by not identifying the right persons, and the instant case was one glaring example as to how the victims are defended by political appointees in a case of rape of a woman from the oppressed community.

The Bench noticed that the Accident Register, a crucial document, was not marked before the trial Court, and the Doctor was not examined properly regarding the same by the prosecution. Even though a copy of the wound certificate was available in the CD file and was placed before the Court, the Prosecutor concerned did not take any steps to mark the Accident Register as an additional document by filing an application under Section 311 CrPC. “Therefore, it appears that the Law Officer either deliberately evaded marking the document or was not equipped with the basic knowledge of conducting a criminal trial before the Sessions Court”, it mentioned.

Finding that the Director had recommended the removal of the Law Officer concerned, but the Government was yet to decide on the same, the Bench held that by keeping the file pending, the Government was enabling an unfit person to continue in the post and continue to cause injustice to other victims as well.

The Bench thus dismissed the application by impleading the District Collector, Theni and the Secretary to the Government, Home Department, Chennai, as parties to the petition.

Cause Title: Rajkumar v. The State of Tamil Nadu (Case No.: Crl.M.P.(MD) No.12468 of 2025)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocate S.Ramanathan

Respondent: Government Advocate (Crl. Side) A.S.Abul Kalaam Azad, Advocate R.Karunanidhi

Click here to read/download Order