The Madras High Court Madurai Bench criticised politically motivated appointments of public prosecutors, warning it weakens justice delivery and harms victims. Justice B. Pugalendhi said selections based on allegiance over merit compromise competence, leaving litigants to suffer and undermining the administration of justice.
CHENNAI: The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has criticised the practice of appointing public prosecutors for political reasons, noting that it weakens the justice system and prejudices victims.
Justice B. Pugalendhi expressed concern that law officers and public prosecutors appear to be chosen for their closeness to the ruling establishment rather than on merit.
The judge said,
“It is deeply disturbing to note that the State appears to be appointing Government Pleaders / Public Prosecutors / Law Officers not on merit, but on the basis of their proximity and allegiance to the ruling dispensation. A significant number of such appointees lack the requisite competence and legal acumen to effectively conduct cases… The inevitable consequence is that litigants are left to suffer, and the administration of justice itself stands compromised,”
The remarks arose from a 2019 matter in which a woman from a Scheduled Caste alleged she was assaulted and an attempt was made to rape her early one morning. A complaint was filed immediately and the victim was medically examined the same day.
At trial, the accused was convicted under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC (attempt to rape) and Section 3(1)(w)(i) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. He was sentenced to five years’ rigorous imprisonment for the IPC offence and six months’ imprisonment under the SC/ST Act. The accused appealed to the High Court and sought suspension of sentence, denying the allegations and claiming the victim had not sustained injuries.
The State, however, relied on the doctor’s accident register, which recorded multiple injuries including abrasions, nail marks, bleeding and contusion. The Court observed that this important record had not been formally marked during the trial and the doctor was not questioned about it. Even after the document came to light, the prosecutor failed to move to have it admitted as additional evidence. The Court found that the law officer either intentionally avoided marking the document or lacked basic competence in conducting a criminal trial.
A Director of Prosecution inquiry identified shortcomings in the prosecution and recommended the Special Public Prosecutor’s removal in July 2025. The State had not acted on that recommendation.
The Court remarked:
“By keeping the file pending, the Government is in fact enabling this unfit person to continue in the post and continue to cause injustice to other victims as well.”
The Bench also referred to earlier directions requiring the State to adopt merit-based guidelines for appointing law officers, noting that despite such orders, political considerations still influence appointments and impair prosecution quality. It called the present matter a striking example.
The Court underscored that victims particularly from marginalised communities rely on the State to prosecute offenders effectively. Given the State’s inaction, the Court suo motu added the District Collector of Theni and the State Home Secretary as parties and directed them to decide on the prosecutor’s removal recommendation within four weeks.
On the substantive plea for suspension, the Court refused relief, citing the gravity of the allegations and the material on record.
The petitioner was represented by S. Ramanathan. The State and official respondents were represented by Government Advocate (Criminal Side) A. S. Abul Kalaam Azad. The victim was represented by R. Karunanidhi.
Case Title: Raj Kumar v. State of Tamil Nadu