State Appointing Law Officers Only On Basis Of Political Allegiance, Not Merit: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court recently remarked that the State government was appointing Government pleaders, public prosecutors, and law officers only based on their political allegiance and not on the basis of merit. Justice B Pugalendhi noted that in some cases, the only qualification of the law officers appointed by the State was their involvement in menial political activities, like sticking posters for the party. The court added that this practice struck at the very root of professional standards that was expected by the officers. “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. Such appointments, at times, extend even to individuals whose only apparent qualification is their involvement in menial political activities, such as affixing posters during elections. This practice strikes at the very root of professional standards expected of Law Officers,” the court said. The court added that even after appointment, many such law officers did not take efforts to develop the necessary skills that was needed in the profession, which was making the litigants suffer and compromising the administration of justice. “A significant number of such appointees lack the requisite competence and legal acumen to effectively conduct cases. More troubling aspect is that even after their appointment as Law Officers, there is a lack of effort in developing the necessary skills to effectively defend cases. The inevitable consequence is that litigants are left to suffer, and the administration of justice itself stands compromised,” the court said. The court made the above remarks while hearing an application filed by a convict seeking to suspend the sentence imposed on him by the Special Court for trial of cases under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The petitioner, Rajkumar, was convicted and sentenced by the Special Court under Section 376 read with Section 511 of IPC and Section 3(1)(w)(i) of the SC/ST Act. As per the prosecution, the petitioner had attempted to rape the victim, who belonged to the Scheduled Caste community. Seeking to suspend the sentence, the petitioner argued that the allegation of attempted rape was false and the victim girl had not suffered any injury. It was argued that there was a personal dispute, and a false case was foisted against him. Opposing this, the Government Advocate argued that the girl had suffered four injuries, which were reflected in the Accident register and which was recorded by the Doctor who examined the girl. The court however noted that this accident register, which was a crucial document for the prosecution, was not marked before the trial court and no question was put forth by the prosecution in connection with the same during the examination of the doctor. The court noted that either the law officer had deliberately evaded marking the document or was not equipped with the basic knowledge of conducting a criminal trial. The court added that even previously, it had issued directions to the State Government to formulate or frame guidelines for selection of advocates to the post of Government Law Officers. The court however noted that despite this direction, the Secretaries to Government who were involved in the selection process were sailing along with the Government and not identifying the right persons for appointment. The court added that when victims could not punish the offenders, the State had a solemn duty to take up their cause. The court noted that the State's obligation was not an empty formality and the forefathers had framed the Constitution hoping that the state would take up the cause of victims. The court also noted that when it had considered an earlier application filed by the petitioner, it had directed the Director of Prosecution to take appropriate action against the concerned Public Prosecutor who had appeared before the trial court. The court also noted that the Director of Prosecution had filed a report admitting the manner in which trial was conducted and had recommended to the Government to remove the officer from his service. The court observed that despite this recommendation, the State had not taken any action. It wondered why the matter was referred to the Government when District Level law officers were appointed by the Collector. Further, considering the manner in which the State had slept on the recommendations of the Director of Prosecution, the court suo motu impleaded the District Collector and directed the authorities to take a decision on the proposal within 4 weeks. Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. S. Ramanathan Counsel for Respondent: Mr. A. S. Abul Kalaam Azad, Government Advocate (Crl. Side), Mr. R. Karunanidhi Case Title: Rajkumar v The State of Tamil Nadu and...

State Appointing Law Officers Only On Basis Of Political Allegiance, Not Merit: Madras High Court

Upasana Sajeev

Tags