Duties of a Public Prosecutor in India: Jurisprudential Evolution and Contemporary Challenges

Duties of a Public Prosecutor in India: Jurisprudential Evolution and Contemporary Challenges

1. Introduction

The office of the Public Prosecutor (PP) occupies a pivotal position in the Indian criminal justice system, functioning at the confluence of the executive’s investigative powers and the judiciary’s adjudicatory mandate. Contemporary Indian jurisprudence treats the PP not merely as an advocate for conviction but as a “minister of justice” whose overriding obligation is to ensure a fair, impartial and effective criminal process. This article critically analyses the statutory architecture, seminal case-law, and evolving academic discourse on the duties of the PP, with particular reference to the authoritative determinations emanating from the Supreme Court and various High Courts.

2. Statutory Framework

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) constitutes the primary legislative source governing the appointment and functions of Public Prosecutors.[1] Core provisions include:

  • Section 24 – appointment, tenure and qualifications of Public Prosecutors and Special Public Prosecutors.
  • Section 25 – Assistant Public Prosecutors in Magistrates’ Courts.
  • Sections 225, 301 & 302 – exclusive conduct of prosecutions in the Court of Session by the PP; limited role of private counsel.
  • Sections 321 & 494 – withdrawal from prosecution.
  • Section 406 – transfer of criminal cases in the interests of justice.

Supplementary obligations arise under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (e.g. Sec. 154 on hostile witnesses) and under professional ethics embodied in the Bar Council of India Rules.

3. Conceptualising the Role: From Crown Agent to “Minister of Justice”

The earliest judicial exposition of prosecutorial duty is found in Queen-Empress v. Durga (1894), where the Allahabad High Court stressed that the PP must “see that justice is vindicated” rather than seek an “unrighteous conviction”.[2] Subsequent constitutionalisation of due-process values, particularly after the advent of Article 21, has entrenched the notion that the PP represents society at large and is obliged to balance competing interests – conviction of the guilty, protection of the innocent, and safeguarding of fundamental rights.[3]

4. Core Duties Distilled from Jurisprudence

4.1 Duty of Fairness and Impartiality

High Courts routinely reiterate that the PP “has no friends or foes in Court”. In Sri K.V. Shiva Reddy v. State of Karnataka, the Karnataka High Court cautioned that the PP must neither scuttle legitimate benefits to the accused nor conceal exculpatory material.[4] The Supreme Court in MAHABIR v. State of Haryana echoed this sentiment, emphasising a fair balance between societal interests and individual rights.[5]

4.2 Duty to Assist the Court with the Whole Truth

In Shiv Kumar v. Hukam Chand the Court of last resort clarified that the PP’s remit goes beyond securing conviction; it extends to placing “all relevant material” before the Court.[6] The Delhi High Court, relying on Rekha Murarka, recently reaffirmed that private counsel cannot supplant the PP’s institutional role because such substitution risks a partisan, conviction-oriented approach.[7]

4.3 Duty Regarding Witness Management and Evidence Disclosure

The obligation to call material witnesses irrespective of the side they favour was articulated as early as 1894 (Durga) and has since been reiterated in Rana Sinha Sujit Sinha v. State of Tripura.[8] The Supreme Court in K. Anbazhagan v. Superintendent of Police found prosecutorial inertia in controlling hostile witnesses a valid ground for transfer of trial under Sec. 406 CrPC.[9]

4.4 Duty in Matters of Withdrawal from Prosecution

Sections 321 and 494 CrPC authorise withdrawal but subject the discretion to judicial oversight. In State of Bihar v. Ram Naresh Pandey the Court characterised the power as “executive”, yet held that the Court must guard against abuse.[10] The larger Bench in Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar tightened the standard, requiring that withdrawal demonstrably serve “public justice”.[11]

4.5 Duty to Maintain Institutional Independence

The frequency with which Special Public Prosecutors are appointed at the behest of complainants has spurred litigation. In Dodda Brahmanandam and Devineni Seshagiri Rao the Andhra Pradesh High Court recognised an accused’s locus to object where reasonable apprehension of bias exists, yet stopped short of mandating blanket disqualification.[12] The guiding principle is that a PP must not appear to be an “interested party”.

4.6 Duty to Curtail Partisan Prosecution and Private Influence

Section 225 CrPC vests exclusive prosecutorial control in the PP before a Sessions Court, while Section 301(2) limits private counsel to an assisting role. The Supreme Court in Shiv Kumar held that allowing private counsel to lead evidence would compromise trial fairness.[6] This stance has been consistently endorsed by the High Courts of Jharkhand and Delhi.[7][13]

4.7 Ethical and Professional Obligations

Statutory duties are complemented by ethical precepts. The Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Johri Mal held that only “competent counsel of integrity” should be appointed, underscoring merit-based selection as a facet of the State’s rule-of-law obligation.[14] The Bar Council Rules further require candour, avoidance of suppression, and respect for the rights of the accused.

5. Emerging Challenges and Reform Imperatives

5.1 Quality and Independence of Appointments

The divergence between tenure-based Public Prosecutors and career civil-service Assistant Public Prosecutors (as highlighted in Kerala APP Association v. State of Kerala) raises concerns regarding institutional memory, independence and parity.[15] Transparent, merit-centric appointment processes, free from political patronage, are imperative.

5.2 Victim Participation and Section 24(8) CrPC

The statutory avenue for victims to request a Special PP must be balanced against the risk of partisan zeal. Jurisprudence indicates that while victim-sponsored prosecutors are permissible, the Court must vigilantly police conflicts of interest and ensure continued adherence to prosecutorial neutrality.[12]

5.3 Managing Hostile Witnesses and Perjury

Cases such as Shakila Abdul Gafar Khan v. Dhoble expose systemic weaknesses in evidence preservation and witness protection.[16] Prosecutors must proactively invoke Sections 154 (Evidence Act) and 195 (CrPC) to deter perjury and secure reliable testimony.

5.4 Technology, Case-Load and Training

The exponential rise in cyber-crime and digital evidence necessitates continuous professional development of prosecutors. Specialised training modules and digital case-management systems are essential for sustaining prosecutorial efficiency.

6. Conclusion

Indian courts have painstakingly sculpted a normative edifice that positions the Public Prosecutor as an impartial arbiter of public justice, distinct from both the investigatory arm of the State and private parties’ interests. Statutory mandates, read with constitutional values, require the PP to pursue truth with fairness, assist the Court with complete candour, and safeguard the rights of both society and the accused. While jurisprudential milestones—from Ram Naresh Pandey through Shiv Kumar and K. Anbazhagan—have clarified discrete aspects of the prosecutorial function, persistent challenges relating to appointment, resource constraints and victim participation underscore the need for ongoing reform. Ultimately, the vitality of India’s criminal justice system is inextricably linked to the integrity, competence and independence of its Public Prosecutors.

Footnotes

  1. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, §§ 24–26, 225, 301–302, 321, 406, 494.
  2. Queen-Empress v. Durga, ILR 16 All 84 (1894).
  3. Sidhartha Vashisht alias Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2010) 6 SCC 1.
  4. Sri K.V. Shiva Reddy v. State of Karnataka, 2005 SCC OnLine Kar —.
  5. MAHABIR v. State of Haryana, (2025) — SC —.
  6. Shiv Kumar v. Hukam Chand, (1999) 7 SCC 467.
  7. Rekha Murarka v. State of West Bengal, (2020) 2 SCC 474.
  8. Rana Sinha Sujit Sinha v. State of Tripura, 2011 SCC OnLine Gau —.
  9. K. Anbazhagan v. Superintendent of Police, (2004) 3 SCC 767.
  10. State of Bihar v. Ram Naresh Pandey, AIR 1957 SC 389.
  11. Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar, (1987) 1 SCC 288.
  12. Dodda Brahmanandam v. State of A.P., 1985 SCC OnLine AP 175; Devineni Seshagiri Rao v. State of A.P., 2003 SCC OnLine AP 1264.
  13. Bipin Kumar Verma v. State of Jharkhand, 2022 SCC OnLine Jhar —.
  14. State of U.P. v. Johri Mal, (2004) 4 SCC 714.
  15. Kerala Assistant Public Prosecutors Association v. State of Kerala, 2018 SCC OnLine SC 551.
  16. Shakila Abdul Gafar Khan v. Vasant Raghunath Dhoble, (2003) SCC (Cri) 1918.