Public Prosecutors shamelessly hobnobbing with politicians: Himachal Pradesh High Court orders refresher course for PPs on ethics

The Himachal Pradesh High Court recently ordered all public prosecutors to take a 'refresher course' on ethics and morality after noticing the recent trend to "shamelessly" hobnob with politicians to procure transfer orders suiting their convenience [Tarsen Kumar vs State of Himachal Pradesh].A division bench of Justices Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Chander Bhusan Barowalia said that a public prosecutor is expected to be scrupulously fair and completely detached without evincing any anxiety while performing his duties."The expected attitude of the Public Prosecutor while conducting prosecution must be couched in fairness not only to the Court and to the investigating agencies, but to the accused as well. The Prosecutor does not represent the investigating agency but represents the State. Its role is intrinsically dedicated to conduct a fair trial and, therefore, it does not behove well that these Attorneys be seen hobnobbing with the politicians or socializing with the public," the Court said in its July 6 order.The Court further stated that new persons, who are being recruited for the posts of prosecutors, are not at all aware of the status they hold and the conduct and behaviour that is expected of them by virtue of their office alone."Therefore, let all the Public Prosecutors inducted in service over the last 15 years, irrespective of their ranks as Additional Public Prosecutor or Public Prosecutor, undergo a refresher course designed, laying special emphasis on ethics, morality and conduct expected of a Public Prosecutor in the Himachal Pradesh Judicial Academy, Shimla," the bench orderedA directive was, therefore, issued to the Director of Himachal Pradesh Judicial Academy to design such a program within a period of four weeks..The Court was hearing a petition filed by a prosecutor challenging the transfer of another prosecutor, who obtained the same on the basis of a Demi-Official (DO) note signed by a local Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA). The bench noted that even the petitioner had obtained a similar DO note to get himself transferred to another district, which was signed by another MLA.Considering the facts of the case, the bench underlined that the working of the prosecutors has to be free from any executive or political interference."The concept of independence of prosecutors being a wider concept indicates an independent functioning of every prosecutor free of fear, interference and breaches. Therefore, the conduct of every prosecutor should be above reproach and he should deal with his appointment as a public trust and should not allow other affairs or private interests to be interfered with his official duties, nor, he should administer the office for the purpose of advancing his personal ambitions or increasing his popularity. If he compromises with his office, its rippling effects would be both disastrous as well as deleterious," the bench opined.The bench further emphasised that the conduct expected from the prosecutors is like a judicial officer."The Prosecutor has to discharge his duties diligently without fear or favour and without ill-will or malice. A prosecutor, who fails and neglects his duties cannot import effective and substantial service to the administration of justice. It is in discharge of hi duties, he is ordained by law, by professional ethics or by his role as an Officer of the Court, to employ only such means as are fair and legitimate, and to desist from resorting to unjust and wrongful means," the Court observed..The judges noted that the record showed that a criminal case was pending against one of the MLAs, who issued a DO note in favour of petitioner in that very Court where petitioner was posted."We really wonder whether with these falling standards can the public repose any trust or confidence on the prosecutor as being fair and impartial as against the standards as are expected of a Public Prosecutor," the bench observed, while cancelling the transfer orders of both the petitioner as well as a private respondent, who were transferred to Kangra district by MLAs.The Court also ordered that henceforth no Public Prosecutor, Assistant District Attorney and District Attorney shall be transferred on the basis of the DO notes and their transfers shall be effected strictly in accordance with the Comprehensive Guidelines, 2013, for regulating the transfers of the employees, that too, only by the Administrative authority..Advocate Anup Rattan appeared for petitioner.Advocate General Ashok Sharma along with Senior Additional AG Rajinder Dogra, Additional AGs Vinod Thakur and Shiv Pal Manhans represented the State.Advocate Tarun Sharma appeared for MLA Arun Kumar..[Read Judgment]