Prosecutors Given Weightage Points For Persuading Judges To Award Death Penalty : Supreme Court Expresses Surprise At MP Govt Policy

A Bench comprising Justices U.U. Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia was hearing a suo moto writ petition pertaining to laying down norms and framing guidelines regarding the process of collecting and scrutinising mitigation information in death penalty matters.

On the last date of hearing, Amicus Curiae, Mr. K. Parameshwar had apprised the Bench that the State of Madhya Pradesh has an existing policy to provide incentives and increments to the Public Prosecutors based on the death sentence awarded in matters prosecuted by them. In view of the same, the Bench asked Advocate, Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, representing the State of Madhya Pradesh, to submit the particulars of the policy and her arguments to defend the same.

In the affidavit filed on behalf of State of Madhya Pradesh, it has been asserted that there is 'no policy of monetary increment or incentive to prosecutors on capital punishment'. By way of an Officer Memorandum dated 24.01.2017, an initiative was taken to develop a system to facilitate monitoring of the daily work of regular cadre public prosecutors, which is known as "Prosecution Performance Evaluation And Monitoring System". To motivate prosecutors further, by notification dated 03.11.2017, certain activities were assigned 'weightage' points. The evaluation of their performance is done on a monthly basis and the one getting the maximum points is conferred the title of 'Star Prosecutor' of the month. In 2020, the weightage points were revised. The relevant modifications are as under -

1000 points for Life imprisonment in Prevention of Corruption Cases, NDPS cases, cases chargesheeted by State Bureau of Investigation (Economic Offences); Capital Punishment Cases; 10 years to 20 years punishment in any other Sessions Case.

Justice Bhat expressed concern regarding the particulars disclosed in the affidavit filed by the State Government. He was perturbed that the affidavit indicates that public prosecutors who can persuade a Judge to award death sentence are celebrated as 'Star Prosecutor of the month'.

"… you show someone as the star performer of the month because of the death sentence he is able to persuade a court to award."

Ms. Bobde submitted, "Star performer is not for death sentence."

Justice Bhat refuted, "It is there." The Amicus reckoned that such a submission was indeed made in the affidavit.

As per the affidavit, by way of an Office Memo dated 21.11.2017, a section, namely, "Pride of Prosecution" was introduced to a web-portal to display the names of the prosecutors who have done exemplary work in five categories -

1. Award of Ph.D.
2. Direct Recruitment for post of ADJ
3. Judge in High Court
4. National/State award
5. Publication of Book

In 2018, two more categories were added to the list -

1. Capital Punishment, and
2. Master Trained of Department

On perusal of the affidavit, Justice Bhat enquired -

"Ms. Bobde, your note on this prosecutor thing is very interesting. We are very curious how you would use this for Direct recruitment to district judges. How do you give points?"

Ms. Bobde responded -

"Those prosecutors who were then appointed directly as ADJ we mentioned them as pride of prosecution on the website."

Bemused, Justice Bhat asked her -

"How can you mention a judge as 'pride of prosecution'? This is concerning."

The present suo moto petition emanates from an application filed by Project 39A indicating that there is a need for elaborate investigation into the mitigating factors in death penalty matters.

The Court had issued notice to the Attorney General for India and Member Member Secretary, National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) seeking their suggestions. Senior Advocate, Mr. Siddhartha Dave and Advocate, Mr. K. Parameshwar were appointed as Amicus Curiae for assistance.

Previously, the Attorney General had informed the Bench that he would place on record documents to assist it in assessing the position in foreign jurisdictions.

At the request of the Attorney General, Mr. K.K Venugopal, who was to be held up in the sedition matter, before the Bench led by the Chief Justice of India, the Bench, on Tuesday, adjourned the matter.  

Case Title: In Re Framing Guidelines Regarding Potential Mitigating Circumstances To Be Considered While Imposing Death Penalty, Suo Motu Case No.1/2022