Appoint prosecutors on merit and not on political factors: Supreme Court

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday chided the practice of state governments appointing public prosecutors in high courts on "political considerations" and said favouritism and nepotism compromised merit.

Observing judges were humans and at times they made mistakes, a bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan said the defence counsel and the public prosecutor owed a duty to correct the court if it was falling in some error.

The bench said law officers were one of the "important wheels of the chariot", driven by judges to attain the cherished goal of human beings to secure justice against the wrong doers.

"Judges are human beings and at times they do commit mistakes. The sheer pressure of work at times may lead to such errors. At the same time, the defence counsel as well as the public prosecutor owes a duty to correct the court if the court is falling in some error and for all this, we hold the state government responsible," it said.

"This judgement is a message to all the state governments that the AGPs and APPs in respective high courts should be appointed solely on the merit of the person," it said.

The bench's verdict came on appeals against an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in a criminal case lodged in Haryana.

For the bench, the "most disturbing feature" of the litigation was the high court order on the quantum of sentence which noted the state's counsel request for capital punishment for the accused.

"It is a different thing that the high court rejected the prayer of the public prosecutor. Such is the standard of the public prosecutors in the high courts of the country," the bench said.

"This is bound to happen when the state governments across the country appoint AGPs and APPs in their respective high courts solely on political considerations. Favouritism and nepotism is one additional factor for compromising merit," said the top court.

The bench said the state government owed a duty to ascertain the ability of the person -- proficiency in law, overall background, integrity, etc.

Time and again, said the apex court, it was observed that such appointments -- be it high court or district judiciary -- should only consider a candidate's merit.

Observing public prosecutors held a "public office", the bench said they were not a part of the investigating agency but an "independent statutory authority".

"The criminal law enforcement system investigates crimes and prosecutes offenders. It must also protect valued rights and freedoms, and convict only the guilty. The prosecutor must recognise these different and competing interests," it said.

Outlining a prosecutor's duty, the court said they should assist the court in reaching a proper conclusion in regard to the case which was brought before it.

"A public prosecutor is not expected to show a thirst to reach the case in the conviction of the accused somehow or the other irrespective of the true facts of the case," it added.

In the case at hand, the bench allowed the appeals and set aside the high court's verdict which held the appellants guilty of murder and sentenced them to life imprisonment.

The bench directed Haryana to compensate the appellants with Rs 5 lakh each within four weeks.

The case related to an incident which took place on March 13, 1998.

The top court said the high court committed an "egregious error" in reversing the acquittal and passing an order of conviction in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction and that too without any opportunity of hearing to the appellants.

"Reputation of an individual is an insegregable facet of his right to life with dignity," it added.