Junaid Khan Lynching Case: Trial Court Says Haryana AAG Helping The Accused; Directs Action For Professional Misconduct [Read Order]

Additional Sessions Judge Y.S. Rathore has accused Additional Advocate General for State, Mr. Naveen Kaushik, of assisting the defence counsel appearing for the accused persons charged with brutally lynching 16-year-old boy, Junaid Khan, in June this year.

According to an interim order, it came to the notice of the Court that Mr. Kaushik was helping the defence counsel during the cross examination of prosecution witnesses and suggesting questions to be put to them.

Taking serious note of his actions, the Court observed, "This act of Mr. Naveen Kaushik, Additional Advocate General Haryana amounts to professional misconduct and is against legal ethics and highly unbecoming of an Advocate, particularly because he is a Law Officer in the office of Advocate General, Haryana."

The Court took note of the sensitivity of the case in which "according to prosecution case, one boy of minority community was killed during the quarrel in a train over sharing of seats with passengers of majority community after the deceased was allegedly abused on religious lines".

It then opined that in such a scenario, if Mr. Kaushik appears in the Court along with the defence counsel, "it will send a wrong signal and will also create a feeling of insecurity amongst the victim party and will adversely affect the aim of the court to conduct free and fair trial".

Judge Rathore, thereafter, directed a letter to be written to Punjab and Haryana High Court, which is then expected to take up the matter with the State Government, office of Advocate General, and Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana for taking necessary action against Mr. Kaushik.

It may be interesting to note here that the Supreme Court has, in the past, directed that erring prosecutors and investigating officers must be proceeded against for unmerited acquittals and wrongful convictions. The Court had then lamented the growing number of acquittals due to poor investigation and had scorned at the lapses committed in the investigation and prosecution of the case before it. It had, thereafter, directed all State Governments to put in place a mechanism for proper training of its officers to ensure that the accused is punished and at the same time, innocent persons are not wrongly framed.

Soon after, the Court's fears had received validation by Ms. Rohini Salian, Special Public Prosecutor in the case relating to the 2008 Malegaon blasts, who confessed that she had been under pressure from the National Investigation Agency to go "soft" on the Hindu extremists accused in the case.

With the Trial Court's recent observations, it becomes imperative that the Supreme Court's directions be given effect to in cases where such allegations against prosecutors and investing officers are found to be true.