Indicate Steps Taken To Appoint Public Prosecutors In Courts: Karnataka High Court Asks Govt

The Karnataka High Court on Friday directed the state government to place on record a compliance report indicating steps taken by it for appointment of public prosecutors in courts across the state.

A division bench of Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Suraj Govindaraj said "It must be noted here that without the presence of adequate number of public prosecutors the criminal courts cannot function. Moreover, failure to appoint an adequate number of public prosecutors directly affects the disposal of cases, especially those criminal cases where accused are undertrial prisoners. It can be said that providing adequate public prosecutors is an essential part of the infrastructure of the courts."

The court noted that as per the decision the case of Brij Mohan Lal vs Union of India, (2012) 6 SCC 502, it is the constitutional obligation of the state government to provide adequate infrastructure to the courts. In fact, the law is that financial constraints on the government are no grounds to not provide adequate infrastructure to the courts.

The direction was given during the hearing of a suo-motu petition initiated by the high court in the year 2019, to fill in all the vacant posts of Public Prosecutors, Senior Assistant Public Prosecutors and Assistant Public Prosecutors across the State.

In its order in 2019, the court had noted then that there are 187 sanctioned posts of Public Prosecutors in the State, out of which 70 are vacant. Out of 411 sanctioned posts of Assistant Public Prosecutors, 204 posts are vacant. Out of 123 sanctioned posts of Senior Assistant Public Prosecutors, 18 posts are vacant. Therefore, about 40% of the posts of Prosecutors are vacant.

The court had observed "The failure of the State to appoint Prosecutors has adversely affected administration of justice as far as criminal matters are concerned. We must note here that total pendency of criminal cases in the trial courts in the State is of 8,10,730 out of which 61,867 criminal cases are more than five years old and 10,650 criminal cases are more than10 years old."

Further, it had said "Unless the posts of Prosecutors are filled in by the State Government, it will be impossible for the Criminal Courts to deal with the huge pendency." It had added "Under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, every accused has a right to have a speedy trial. If the trials are delayed due to non-availability of the Prosecutors, there will be a violation of fundamental rights of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India."

Accordingly, it had directed the State Government to file objections, placing on record a time bound schedule for filling in the vacant posts of three categories of Public Prosecutors. While fixing the time schedule, the State Government will have regard to the fact that priority deserves to be given to appoint Prosecutors in those Courts in which there is a huge pendency of criminal cases.

In its order dated March 20, 2020 the court had recorded the statement made in the affidavit filed by H.M.Raghavendra, Under Secretary, Police Services-B, Home Department. In which it was stated that "Posting orders dated 11th March 2020 were issued to 205 Assistant Public Prosecutors-cum-Assistant Government Pleaders on the contract basis. Out of 205 candidates, 200 candidates themselves have been reported at their respective places of postings. It is stated that the orders promoting 48 Assistant Public Prosecutors as Senior Assistant Public Prosecutors have been issued and shortly, the promotees will take charge of these respective posts. It is stated that out of 78 Senior Assistant Public Prosecutors who have been promoted to the posts of Public Prosecutors, the posting orders have been issued to 77 officers, who will shortly take charge of their respective posts."

The matter will be heard next on April 5.