The Kerala High Court has issued a firm directive to the state government, demanding immediate action in establishing clear guidelines for appointing public prosecutors in district courts. The court emphasized that the government should not wait for further coercive orders to comply with this judicial mandate.
Judicial Directive and Petition Details
A bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice V M Syam Kumar delivered this significant order while addressing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by P S Sudheer, a practicing lawyer from Kollam. The petitioner sought court intervention to compel the state government to formulate appointment guidelines in accordance with the High Court's previous ruling issued on April 9, 2025.
The core allegation presented by the petitioner revealed that despite the High Court's clear April 9 directive, the state government proceeded to issue fresh notifications for prosecutor appointments without establishing the required guidelines. This action directly contravened the court's specific instructions regarding compliance with Supreme Court mandates and Section 18 of the BNSS (Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita).
Background of the Legal Mandate
The High Court's original April 9 order emerged from a suo motu case, where the judiciary took notice of the issue independently. In that ruling, the court had explicitly instructed the state government to develop internal administrative guidelines that strictly conform to Section 18(3) of the BNSS and the legal framework established by Supreme Court precedents.
These guidelines are specifically required to outline the procedures and methodology that ensure the district judge's opinion receives proper primacy in the appointment process. The court had noted significant flaws in the existing practice, where the government appoints public prosecutors from panels prepared by district collectors after considering district judges' remarks.
A critical deficiency identified in the current system involves the absence of direct consultation between district judges and district collectors. This procedural gap has led to instances where adverse remarks made by sessions judges about certain advocates were completely ignored during appointment considerations.
Current Proceedings and Government Response
During the recent hearing, the state government requested additional time to submit its formal response to the allegations. The High Court, while acknowledging this request, has scheduled the next hearing for December 4, providing the government adequate opportunity to present its position.
Meanwhile, the petitioner highlighted that instead of complying with the court's directions, the state government issued what he described as a vague and ambiguous notification for appointing an additional public prosecutor in the Kollam district court. This action further underscored the urgency for establishing clear, transparent guidelines.
The Kerala High Court's firm stance signals the judiciary's commitment to ensuring proper procedures in legal appointments, emphasizing that the district judiciary's input must hold substantial weight in selecting public prosecutors who play crucial roles in the administration of justice.
