Madras High Court says State appointing prosecutors based on political considerations, not merit

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has criticised the appointment of public prosecutors based on political considerations, observing that such practices undermine the justice system and harm victims [Raj Kumar Vs State of Tamil Nadu]..Justice B Pugalendhi said that it was disturbing to note that law officers and public prosecutors are appointed on the basis of their proximity to the ruling dispensation rather than merit. “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. A significant number of such appointees lack the requisite competence and legal acumen to effectively conduct cases… The inevitable consequence is that litigants are left to suffer, and the administration of justice itself stands compromised," the judge opined..The observations came in a case arising from a 2019 incident where a woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste community alleged that she was assaulted and an attempt was made to rape her when she had gone out early in the morning. A complaint was lodged immediately and she was medically examined the same day.The trial court convicted the accused under Section 376 read with 511 IPC (attempt to rape) and Section 3(1)(w)(i) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and sentenced him to five years’ rigorous imprisonment for the IPC offence and six months’ imprisonment under the SC/ST Act.The accused filed an appeal before the High Court and sought suspension of sentence. He argued that the allegations were false and that the victim had not suffered any injuries.However, the State relied on the accident register prepared by the doctor, which recorded multiple injuries including abrasion, nail marks, bleeding and contusion. The Court noted that this crucial document was not marked during trial and no questions were put to the doctor on this aspect..The Court found that even when the document was available later, the prosecutor failed to take steps to mark it as additional evidence. It observed that the law officer either deliberately evaded marking the document or was not equipped with the basic knowledge of conducting a criminal trial..An enquiry by the Director of Prosecution confirmed lapses in the conduct of the case and recommended removal of the Special Public Prosecutor in July 2025. However, the State had not taken any decision on the recommendation..On this, the Court observed:“By keeping the file pending, the Government is in fact enabling this unfit person to continue in the post and continue to cause injustice to other victims as well.”.The Court also recalled earlier directions requiring the State to frame proper guidelines for appointment of law officers based on merit. It noted that despite such directions, appointments continued to be influenced by political considerations, affecting the quality of prosecution.The present case is a glaring example of the same, the Court said. It further opined that victims, especially those from oppressed communities, place their faith in the State which has a duty to effectively prosecute offenders..Taking note of the inaction, the Court suo motu impleaded the District Collector of Theni and the State Home Secretary and directed them to take a decision on the recommendation for removal of the prosecutor within four weeks..On the merits, the Court refused to suspend the sentence citing the serious nature of the allegations and the materials available..The petitioner was represented by advocate S Ramanathan..The State and official respondents were represented by Government Advocate (Criminal Side) AS Abul Kalaam Azad. The victim was represented by advocate R Karunanidhi..[Read Judgment]