Supreme Court rejects plea against Section 20(2)(a) of BNSS allowing judges to head State prosecution offices

The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed a petition challenging a Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) provision that allows serving or retired judicial officers to be appointed as heads of prosecution offices under State governments.

A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi said the petition was misconceived.

"The plea challenges Section 20(2)(a) of the BNSS. This is a misconceived challenge and has no legal basis. Dismissed," the Court ordered.

Section 20(2)(a) and Section 20(2)(b) of the BNSS permit appointment of Sessions Judges, Magistrates and retired judicial officers as Directors, Deputy Directors, and Assistant Directors of Prosecution in State-run prosecution departments.

The plea filed by advocate Subeesh PS argued that such arrangement allows judges to function within an executive-controlled prosecutorial hierarchy. The same strikes at the core of judicial independence and violates the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers, he said.

However, Justice Bagchi said,

"Word has to be read as eligibility and not a mandatory condition."

Under Section 20 of the BNSS, every State is required establish a Directorate of Prosecution headed by a Director of Prosecution.

The law places this Directorate under the administrative control of the State Home Department. All public prosecutors and assistant public prosecutors are made subordinate to this Directorate.

The provisions make serving or retired judicial officers eligible to occupy senior positions within this structure.

The plea argued that this results in judges, who are constitutionally expected to act as neutral adjudicators, being placed within an executive framework that supervises investigation decisions, prosecutions, and appeals.

The petitioner contended that this blurs the constitutionally mandated line between the judiciary and the executive.