Appointment of Public Prosecutors
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Johri Mal , AIR 2004 SC 3800: (2004) 4 SCC 714
1. A distinction is to be borne in mind between appointment of a Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor on the one hand, and Assistant Public Prosecutor, on the other. So far as Assistant Public Prosecutors are concerned, they are employees of the State. They hold Civil posts. They are answerable for their conduct to higher statutory authority. Their appointment is governed by the service rules framed by the respective State Government.
2. The appointment of the Public Prosecutors, on the other hand, is governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure and/or the executive instructions framed by the State governing the terms of their appointment. Proviso appended to Article 309 of the Constitution of India is not applicable in their case. Their appointment is a tenure appointment. Public Prosecutors, furthermore retain the character of legal practitioners for all intent and purport. They, of course, discharge public functions and certain statutory powers are also conferred upon them. Their duties and functions are onerous but the same would not mean that their conditions of appointment are governed by any statute or statutory rule.
3. So long as in appointing a counsel the procedures laid down under the Code of Criminal Procedure are followed and a reasonable or fair procedure is adopted, the Court will normally not interfere with the decision. The nature of the office held by a lawyer vis-à-vis the State being in the nature of professional engagement, the Courts are normally chary to overturn any decision unless an exceptional case is made out. The question as to whether the State is satisfied with the performance of its counsel or not is primarily a matter between it and the counsel. The Code of Criminal Procedure does not speak of renewal or extension of tenure. The extension of tenure of Public Prosecutor or the District Counsel should not be compared with the right of renewal under a licence or permit granted under a statute. The incumbent has no legal enforceable right as such. The action of the State in not renewing the tenure can be subjected to judicial scrutiny inter alia on the ground that the same is arbitrary. The Courts normally would not delve into the records with a view to ascertain as to what impelled the State not to renew the tenure of a Public Prosecutor or a District Counsel.
4. The Code of Criminal Procedure does not provide for renewal or extension of a term. Evidently, the Legislature thought it fit to leave such matters at the discretion of the State. It is no doubt true that even in the matter of extension or renewal of the term of Public Prosecutors, the State is required to act fairly and reasonably.
5. Appointment of the District Government Counsel cannot be equated with the appointments of the High Court and the Supreme Court Judge. A distinction must be made between professional engagement and a holder of high public office. Various doctrines and the provisions of the Constitution which impelled this Court to give meaning of 'consultation' as 'concurrence' and wherein the Chief Justice of India will have a primacy, cannot be held to be applicable in the matter of consultation between the District Magistrate and the District Judge for the purpose of preparation of a panel of the District Government Counsel.
6. The State, however, while appointing a Counsel must take into account the following fundamental principles which are required to be observed that good and competent lawyers are required to be appointed for-
(i) good administration of justice;
(ii) to fulfil its duty to uphold the rule of law;
(iii) its accountability to the public; and
(iv) expenditure from the tax payers' money.
Only when good and competent Counsels are appointed by the State, the public interest would be safeguarded.
7. While making appointments of District Government Counsel, therefore, the State should give primacy to the opinion of the District Judge. Such a course of action would demonstrate fairness and reasonableness of action and, furthermore, to a large extent the action of the State would not be dubbed as politically motivated or otherwise arbitrary.