Plea In Karnataka High Court Questions Appointment Of HK Jagadish As Incharge Director Of Prosecution, Says He Has Political Connections

Mustafa Plumber

12 Jun 2023 1:56 PM GMT

  • Plea In Karnataka High Court Questions Appointment Of HK Jagadish As Incharge Director Of Prosecution, Says He Has Political Connections

    The Karnataka High Court on Monday issued notice on a Public Interest Litigation seeking to declare appointment of HK Jagadish as incharge Director of Prosecution and Government Litigation as illegal and contrary to the statutory provisions of Section 25A(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice M G S Kamal issued notice to...

    The Karnataka High Court on Monday issued notice on a Public Interest Litigation seeking to declare appointment of HK Jagadish as incharge Director of Prosecution and Government Litigation as illegal and contrary to the statutory provisions of Section 25A(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

    A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice M G S Kamal issued notice to the respondents on the petition filed by one Sudha Katwa.

    In her petition it is stated that Jadgish was appointed in 2019 and his term has been extended from time to time. CrPC provides that the appointment of Director of Prosecution shall be filled only in accordance with the Cadre and Recruitment rules framed under the Karnataka State Civil Services Act and only with the concurrence of Chief Justice of High Court of Karnataka.

    On the other hand it is seen from the records that the appointment of fourth respondent was made to a person of judicial background, having political connection with the then ruling party and who has not worked as Asst Public Prosecutor or Deputy Prosecutor in the department, the plea states.

    Advocate Umapathi S appearing for the petitioner submitted that Section 25A (2) of the Code provides for eligibility of director of prosecution and deputy director of prosecution, only if he has a practise as an advocate for not less than 10 years. However, the respondent no 4, does not have the basic eligibility for appointment, it is contended.

    Further the petition says the appointment of respondent no 4 was made Director of Prosecution as incharge in the year 2019, such order though termed as temporary cant be continued permanently for more than 45 months. It amounts to permanent posting without the concurrence of the Chief Justice and disregarding the cadre and recruitment rules framed by the government, it is contended.

    The matter will be next heard on June 28.

    Case Title: MS Sudha Katwa And The Registrar General & Others.

    Case No: WP 11387/2023


    Next Story