Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Challenging Appointment Of Police Officers As Public Prosecutors In Jammu & Kashmir

The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice in a petition challenging the appointment of police officers as public prosecutors in the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir.

The bench of Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar sought the responses of the Centre and J&K administration after hearing the matter briefly today. The case will come up next on March 20.

The petition filed by Amit Pathania challenges the judgement delivered by the J&K High Court regarding a decision of the government in 2019 to establish a “Directorate of Prosecution” by creating a separate prosecution service comprising of J&K police persons and appointing them as Deputy Directors/Public Prosecutors/Assistant Public Prosecutors and so on.

This, the plea says is violative of sections 24, 25 and 25A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which was applicable in the UT post the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 and against the spirit of fair trial enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The plea also stated that the respondents exercised their powers in an unlawful, unconstitutional and arbitrary manner, a day before the CrPC was scheduled to come into effect in the UT.

During the hearing today, the advocate appearing for the petitioner argued that only an advocate who is having more than 7 years of practise can be appointed as public prosecutors. The government of Jammu & Kashmir has included erstwhile police officers by cessation of their status as police officers and included in this, he said.

“What’s wrong with it?”, queried the Bench.

“Police prosecutors can’t be termed as advocates. To be a public prosecutor, you need to be an advocate”, said the advocate. When these police officers join police duty, they cease to be advocates, he added.

Public prosecutors should have experience in sessions courts. These persons have experience in magisterial courts, he argued.

But they are performing the same duties, the Bench observed.

“Then they would be hit by Rule 49 of Bar Council of India Rules”, pointed out the advocate. Shortly after, the Court issued notice.

Advocates Anupam Raina, AP Singh and Sunando Raha appeared for the petitioner.

Case Title: Amit Pathania vs UOI | SLP(C) No. 24100/2022 XVI-A

Click Here To Read/Download Order