Background Facts

The petitioner is a practising lawyer who filed a criminal complaint. The police investigated the case and filed a charge sheet against the accused. The case was pending before the First Additional District and Sessions Court, Tirunelveli.

The petitioner was a practising lawyer, therefore, the Bar Association passed a resolution stating that its members would not represent the accused in the case. Therefore, the accused approached the Supreme Court, which transferred the case from Kanniyakumari district to Tirunelveli.

The petitioner alleged that the Additional Public Prosecutor who was handling the case, did not perform his duties properly. He claimed that the prosecutor did not seek cancellation of the accused's bail despite the investigating officer's request. Further that the prosecutor did not oppose the accused's request to get back his vehicle's RC book. The petitioner also alleged that some important records relating to the case were missing.

The petitioner submitted a complaint to the authorities on July 13, 2026, seeking action against the prosecutor. However, no action was taken. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the Madras High Court. He requested that the Bar Council and the Bar Association should take disciplinary action against the prosecutor.

It was contended by the petitioner that the prosecutor did not apply for cancellation of the bail granted to the accused even though the Investigation Officer made a written request. Further that when the accused sought handing over of his vehicle's RC book, the Additional Public Prosecutor did not seriously oppose the said request.

Findings and Observations of the Court

It was noted by the Division Bench that the Bar Council could initiate disciplinary action against an advocate only when there was prima facie material indicating professional misconduct. It was further observed that the prosecutor was not bound to follow every recommendation made by the investigating officer. He had to take independent decisions regarding the cancellation of bail.

The case of A.S.Mohammed Rafi vs State of Tamil Nadu was relied upon wherein it was held that the action of any Bar Association in passing a resolution that none of its members will appear for a particular accused, whether on the ground that he is a policeman or on the ground that he is a suspected terrorist, rapist, mass murderer, etc. is against all norms of the Constitution, the statute and professional ethics. It is against the great traditions of the Bar which has always stood up for defending persons accused for a crime.

It was observed by the Division Bench that whether to mark a document or not and whether to examine a witness or not are to be decided by the Prosecutor and not the Police. The call is his and his alone. A Prosecutor must function fearlessly.

It was further observed by the Division Bench that if the Bar Council is allowed to question a prosecutor's decisions in conducting a criminal case then it would undermine the rule of law. It was clarified by the Bench that disciplinary action could be initiated if the presiding judge made adverse remarks about the prosecutor's conduct in a judicial order.

It was further emphasised by the Court that a prosecutor's duty was to conduct the case fairly and establish the alleged crime, not to act against the accused at all costs. A prosecutor must examine the case records carefully and disclose material that favours the accused. He must act independently rather than blindly follow the police version.

It was held by the Division Bench that the allegations against the prosecutor did not amount to professional misconduct warranting disciplinary action by the Bar Council.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Division Bench.

Counsel for the Petitioner : K. T. K. Janakiram

Counsel for the Respondents : K. R. Shivashankari Additional Government Pleader; K.R.Laxman Standing Counsel