Section 24 CrPC- "Can Advocates With Less Than 7 Yrs Of Practice Represent State In Criminal Cases?": MP High Court Seeks State's Response

The Madhya Pradesh High Court on Tuesday expressed serious concern on contractually appointed Panel Lawyers without the requisite 7 years of experience representing the State Government in important criminal matters like criminal appeals, suspension of sentences, bail applications, etc.The Bench of Chief Justice Mohammad Rafiq and Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla questioned the State & Centre:"Whether a Panel Lawyer may appear in the Court before the High Court in criminal matters like Criminal Appeals, Bail Applications, Criminal Revisions, application for suspension of sentence, MCRCs, etc. even without having the practice of a minimum of seven years and without the consultation with the High Court as required under Section 24 (1) of Cr.P.C.?"The bench took exception to lawyers without requisite experience representing the State Government and Centre before the High Court and Lower Courts in criminal matters, contrary to eligibility stipulated under Section 24 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.The order came in a PIL filed by a Social Worker Gyan Prakash who alleged that without possessing the minimum statutory eligibility, the Advocate General office has authorized a large number of Junior Counsels to represent the State in important criminal matters.Section 24 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 states:For every High Court, the Central Government or the State Government shall, after consultation with the High Court, appoint a Public Prosecutor and may also appoint one or more Additional Public Prosecutors, for conducting in such Court, any prosecution, appeal, or other proceedings on behalf of the Central Government or State Government, as the case may be.Further, Section 24 (7) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 states that a person shall be eligible to be appointed as a Public Prosecutor or an Additional Public Prosecutor under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) or sub-section (6), only if he has been in practice as an advocate for not less than seven years.Having regard to earlier orders passed by the Court and various issues raised, the Court deemed it appropriate to direct the respondent-State to clarify its stand on the following:- Whether one Public Prosecutor is appointed for each Court in all districts of the State to attend the Criminal matters and if not whether multiple numbers of Courts are assigned to one available Public Prosecutor and if yes, give the details thereabout? As to how many posts in the cadre of Additional District Prosecution Officers, District Prosecution Officers and Deputy Director (Prosecution) are lying vacant in the State? Whether the promotions may not be granted against the unfilled posts of the quota of promotion in the cadre of the District Prosecution Officers and Deputy Director (Prosecution) to the extent not affected by order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, with regard to which there is no dispute? Can the State Government not consider appointing Additional District Prosecution Officers/District Prosecution Officers on retainer ship basis for a fixed duration against unfilled posts of Public Prosecutors? How can appointment on contract basis without recourse to Section 24(4) of Cr.P.C. on the basis of panel proposed by the District Magistrate in consultation with the Sessions Judge particularly when Section 24(5) of Cr.P.C. provides that no person shall be appointed by the State Government as the Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor for the district unless his name appears in the panel of names prepared by the District Magistrate under sub-section (4) of Section 24 of Cr.P.C.?Further, the Central Government has also been directed to file the report with regard to compliance of Section 24(1) and Section 24(4) of Cr.P.C. as to whether the Advocates who appear on behalf of the agencies like Central Bureau of Investigation, Enforcement Directorate etc. before High Court and courts subordinate thereto, are appointed by process of consultation with the High Court or Sessions Judge?Standing Counsel for Registrar General, High Court of Madhya Pradesh Siddharth R. Gupta also informed the Chief Justice led Bench that almost all the Courts are facing problems in hearing criminal appeals or criminal cases of public importance, when they are not effectively assisted by Counsels meeting the mandatory eligibility criteria of Section 24 CrPC, 1973. Amicus Curiae Advocate Aditya Sanghi also informed the Court that the minimum period for which Public Prosecutors must be ideally appointed must be fixed for at least 3 years and it should not be purely at the discretion of the political dispensation.Click here To Download OrderRead Order

Section 24 CrPC- "Can Advocates With Less Than 7 Yrs Of Practice Represent State In Criminal Cases?": MP High Court Seeks State's Response

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags