Non-issuance of Appointment Order After Consultation under Section 24 CrPC is a Service Grievance, Not a Criminal Contempt

Introduction

This commentary examines the Rajasthan High Court’s decision in Suo-Moto v. The Chief Secretary (2025:RJ-JP:14869-DB), delivered on April 2, 2025 by Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Anand Sharma. The Court took suo moto cognizance of a letter dated April 16, 2024 from the Registrar General (Jodhpur) to the Principal Secretary, Law & Legal Affairs (Jaipur) regarding the High Court’s consent to the appointment of Shri Brahmanand Sandu as Government Advocate-cum-Additional Advocate General, under Section 24(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The primary issue was whether non-issuance of the formal appointment order after consultation with the High Court could amount to a criminal contempt or warrant a criminal writ petition, and whether such a matter could be treated as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL).

Summary of the Judgment

1. The High Court held that the question of appointing a Government Advocate-cum-Additional Advocate General following consultation under Section 24 CrPC is purely a service issue, not a criminal matter.
2. It ruled that non-issuance of an appointment order does not constitute contempt of court.
3. The Court further reiterated that PIL jurisdiction cannot be invoked for pure service grievances.
4. Accordingly, the suo moto criminal writ proceeding was closed, with liberty to the aggrieved candidate, Shri Brahmanand Sandu, to pursue appropriate remedies.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

Although the Bench did not cite specific case names in its order, it relied on well-settled jurisprudence in two key areas:

• PIL and Service Matters: Supreme Court authorities have held that service disputes—appointments, promotions, transfers—are not amenable to PIL or criminal writs (see: S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, 1981 SCR 722; State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh, (1995) 1 SCC 191). The Court invoked this principle to reject the suo moto petition.
• Contempt Jurisprudence: Decisions such as Virender Kumar v. Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana, (1995) SCC 699 establish that administrative or executive inaction, absent an order or directive of the Court, does not amount to contempt.

2. Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning unfolded along three lines:

• Nature of Proceeding: By treating the matter as a “criminal writ petition,” the Single Judge erred in converting what is essentially a service grievance into a criminal contempt inquiry.
• Section 24 CrPC Consultation: Under Section 24(1) CrPC, the State must consult the High Court before appointing Government Advocates or Additional Advocate General. The mere pendency of that proposal before the executive does not invoke criminal jurisdiction.
• PIL Exclusion: The Court reaffirmed that PIL jurisdiction cannot be used to adjudicate individual service disputes. Absent a broader public interest or systemic failure, the candidate’s recourse is a service petition or writ under Article 226/227 of the Constitution, but not a criminal writ.

3. Impact

This ruling clarifies and strengthens two important principles:

• Administrative delays or refusals to issue appointment orders after High Court consultation under Section 24 CrPC are not actionable as contempt or criminal writs.
• Service-related appointment disputes must be pursued through appropriate service jurisprudence (service petitions, writ petitions), not through PIL or suo moto criminal proceedings.

Going forward, High Courts and litigants will be guided to maintain a clear boundary between administrative service issues and criminal or contempt jurisdiction, preserving judicial resources for bona fide criminal and public law concerns.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Suo Moto Cognizance: The Court’s power to initiate proceedings on its own motion, without a formal petition.
• Criminal Writ Petition: A writ under Article 226 of the Constitution invoking criminal jurisdiction (e.g., for contempt or violation of fundamental rights in a criminal context).
• Public Interest Litigation (PIL): Judicial proceedings initiated to protect the public interest, not to resolve individual disputes.
• Section 24 CrPC Consultation: A statutory requirement that the State Government consult the High Court before appointing Government Advocates or Additional Advocate General to ensure competence and independence of public prosecutorial functions.

Conclusion

The Rajasthan High Court’s decision in Suo-Moto v. The Chief Secretary reaffirms that administrative or service-related appointment issues—even when involving consultation under Section 24 CrPC—do not acquire the character of a criminal proceeding or contempt. It underscores the principle that PIL and suo moto criminal writ jurisdiction cannot be misused to address individual service grievances. This clarity will help prevent jurisdictional overreach and streamline judicial consideration of appointment disputes, preserving both the sanctity of contempt jurisdiction and the focused public purpose of PIL.