Public Prosecution Cannot Become a Political Reward: Competence Must Prevail Over Patronage

 

Public Prosecution Cannot Become a Political Reward: Competence Must Prevail Over Patronage

The newspaper report under the headline, “The List of Public Prosecutors Changes with the Government; Judge Expresses Displeasure over Inexperience,” raises a serious and deeply disturbing issue concerning the functioning of the criminal justice system. According to the report, the Learned District Judge at Alipore expressed dissatisfaction after government-appointed advocates allegedly failed to conduct cases effectively, repeatedly sought adjournments and, in one instance, withdrew from a hearing at a crucial stage. The Court reportedly directed the concerned Public Prosecutor’s office to remain fully prepared and also called for an inquiry into the conduct of a particular government advocate.

The incident should not be viewed merely as an isolated disagreement between the Bench and a lawyer. It exposes a larger institutional problem: the appointment of Public Prosecutors and other government law officers is frequently influenced by political considerations, and the panel often changes whenever there is a change in the political administration. Such a practice creates the impression that these important legal offices are being treated as instruments of political accommodation instead of positions carrying grave constitutional and professional responsibilities.

A Public Prosecutor is neither the personal advocate of the Government nor a representative of any political party. The Public Prosecutor is an officer of the Court and an indispensable participant in the administration of criminal justice. The prosecutor’s duty is not to secure a conviction at any cost, nor to mechanically support every allegation made by the investigating agency. The true responsibility of a prosecutor is to place all relevant facts and admissible evidence before the Court fairly, objectively and fearlessly so that justice may be done.

This position demands sound knowledge of criminal law, procedural law and the law of evidence. It also requires courtroom experience, preparation, presence of mind, professional independence and the ability to assist the Court on complicated questions of fact and law. A criminal trial may concern the liberty of an accused person, the dignity and security of a victim, the rights of witnesses and the larger interest of society. Therefore, an unprepared or inexperienced prosecutor can cause consequences that are both serious and irreversible.

When a government advocate repeatedly seeks time because of inadequate preparation, the immediate loss is not confined to the Government. Every unnecessary adjournment affects an accused awaiting the conclusion of the trial, a victim seeking justice, witnesses repeatedly attending court, investigating officers performing public duties and the judiciary already burdened with pending cases. Delay increases litigation costs, weakens evidence, discourages witnesses and gradually erodes public confidence in the justice-delivery system.

The reported judicial displeasure must therefore be understood as an institutional warning. A Court is entitled to expect that a law officer appearing on behalf of the State will be properly briefed, adequately prepared and capable of assisting it. If an advocate accepts a public appointment but remains unable to conduct the assigned proceedings, the consequences fall upon the entire system. A government panel cannot become a training ground where advocates first attempt to acquire the elementary skills necessary for conducting serious criminal proceedings at the expense of litigants and public justice.

Political affiliation, by itself, may not disqualify a competent advocate from receiving a government appointment. However, political loyalty can never substitute professional competence. If selection is made predominantly on the basis of proximity to the ruling establishment, organisational allegiance or personal recommendation, while experience and legal ability are treated as secondary considerations, the quality and credibility of public prosecution will inevitably decline. The Government may change after an election, but the rule of law must remain continuous, impartial and professionally secure.

The practice of replacing an entire panel of competent law officers merely because a new political dispensation has assumed office also deserves reconsideration. Experienced prosecutors acquire valuable institutional knowledge regarding pending cases, evidentiary records, witnesses and trial strategy. Their wholesale replacement disrupts continuity, causes avoidable delay and places newly appointed advocates in charge of complex matters with which they may have little familiarity. Public interest requires an orderly, transparent and merit-based system rather than abrupt changes motivated primarily by political considerations.

Appointments to the office of Public Prosecutor should therefore be founded upon clearly defined professional standards. Relevant considerations must include the advocate’s length and nature of practice, actual experience in conducting criminal trials, understanding of evidence and procedure, professional reputation, integrity, independence and ability to assist the Court. The process should also include proper scrutiny, objective assessment and meaningful consultation with the judicial authorities wherever legally contemplated.

Appointment alone, however, is not sufficient. Government advocates must receive complete records and instructions well before the date of hearing. They should be supported by efficient briefing systems, access to case materials, coordination with investigating agencies and periodic professional training. Their performance should be reviewed objectively on the basis of preparation, attendance, conduct of cases and assistance rendered to the Court—not merely upon the number of convictions or the advocate’s political acceptability.

At the same time, Public Prosecutors must be provided reasonable professional security. An advocate who fears arbitrary removal for refusing an improper political or administrative instruction cannot perform the role independently. The prosecutor must have the courage to point out weaknesses in the investigation, decline to suppress relevant material and concede a legal position when justice so requires. Such independence protects not only the accused or the victim, but also the credibility of the Government and the dignity of the justice system.

Accountability must operate equally. If a government advocate habitually appears without preparation, repeatedly seeks unnecessary adjournments, abandons a hearing without sufficient cause or fails to discharge professional duties, an impartial inquiry should be conducted. Where the lapse is established, suitable corrective or disciplinary action should follow. Public office cannot be enjoyed merely as a designation, privilege or mark of political recognition; it carries a continuing obligation to perform with diligence and competence.

The concern reportedly expressed by the Learned Judge is therefore timely and significant. It reminds every Government that the administration of justice cannot be compromised for the purpose of rewarding political loyalty. It also reminds members of the legal profession that accepting an appointment as a Public Prosecutor entails a solemn duty towards the Court, society, victims and accused persons alike.

The institution of public prosecution occupies a vital place between the investigating agency and the judiciary. If this institution becomes weak, inexperienced or excessively politicised, the fairness of criminal trials is placed at risk. Conversely, when prosecutors are selected on merit, allowed to act independently and held to proper professional standards, they become powerful guardians of justice and the rule of law.

The message must therefore be clear: Governments may come and go, but the administration of justice must never change its character according to the colour of the ruling party. Public Prosecutors must be chosen for their competence, integrity and independence—not merely for their political connections. Justice is too sacred to become an instrument of patronage.