Consultation must in appointing prosecutors

One of the jobs of prosecutors and lawyers is to aid courts in arriving at the truth, so that real offenders are suitably punished. Let as many persons be acquitted but an innocent shouldn’t be sentenced. That’s criminal jurisprudence.

But does that happen? There have been reports of a nexus between prosecutors and criminals. Thus, the role of government-appointed prosecutors in criminal dispensation is of paramount concern.

While directing a retrial in Gujarat riots cases last year, the Supreme Court had the chance of lifting the veil on political interference in piloting trials according to the whims of the state government that had been accused of shielding the culprits.
Special public prosecutors played a key role in making the designs of the government successful. As victims cried foul, they hurriedly dispensed with evidence and the accused of the worst carnage of innocents benefited in the trial court.

To obliterate the apprehension that public prosecutors are not fair, a bench of then judges Doraiswamy Raju and Arijit Pasayat ordered a retrial last year by “fair prosecutors” not appointed by the state.

In a criminal case, the fate of the proceedings cannot always be left in the hands of the parties. A court has to be circumspect in evaluating defective evidence supported by a prosecutor.

However, it would not be right to acquit an accused solely on account of the defect as that would tantamount to playing into the hands of the investigating officer/s, if the investigation is designedly defective.

Justice is slow is one aspect of dispensation to feel aggrieved about. But justice is tainted is another. The first aspect lies in the domain of judicial administration, but the second grouse has to be sincerely cured by political governance.

The prevailing situation is grim as the Congress-led UPA government has created a database of young “meritorious” lawyers who could be given the responsibility of conducting cases.

One hopes the prosecutors appointed by the ruling party don’t follow in the footsteps of the Gujarat government lawyers.

It’s natural for reforms-smitten Chief Justice of India SH Kapadia to point out the reasons for substandard prosecution. How’s that the quality of prosecutors in the past, when the government consulted the judiciary, before appointments was superior? How’s that the standard of prosecution has fallen to the pits?

True, there has to be a consultation process, as section 24 of CrPC, which the government has long forgotten, also makes it mandatory that a prosecutor must be appointed in consultation with chief justices of high courts concerned. There’s no harm in trying this out.