Appointment Of Special Public Prosecutors
1. What is a Special Public Prosecutor?
A Special Public Prosecutor is a prosecutor appointed for a specific case or group of cases.
Unlike regular Public Prosecutors who handle general prosecution work, a Special Public Prosecutor is appointed to deal with complex, sensitive, or high-profile cases requiring specialized attention.
Appointment is made by the State Government under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
2. Legal Provisions
Section 24(8) of CrPC empowers the State Government or the Central Government to appoint one or more Special Public Prosecutors for conducting cases in any court.
The appointment can be case-specific or for a particular class of cases.
The Special Public Prosecutor has the same powers and duties as a regular Public Prosecutor during the course of prosecution.
3. Purpose of Appointment
To ensure effective and competent prosecution in important or complicated cases.
To bring in experts or advocates with special skills.
To maintain public confidence in the prosecution process in sensitive matters.
To relieve regular prosecutors from case overload.
4. Distinction Between Regular and Special Public Prosecutor
| Aspect | Regular Public Prosecutor | Special Public Prosecutor |
|---|---|---|
| Appointment | By State Government generally | By State/Central Government for specific cases |
| Scope | General cases in jurisdiction | Specific case or class of cases |
| Term | Ongoing until revoked | For duration of case or period fixed |
| Powers | Same | Same |
Important Case Laws on Appointment of Special Public Prosecutors
1. State of Rajasthan v. Om Prakash (AIR 1967 SC 1226)
Facts:
The State appointed a Special Public Prosecutor for a high-profile murder case.
Issue:
Whether the appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor is valid and what is the extent of their authority.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that the appointment of Special Public Prosecutors is a valid exercise of power under Section 24(8) CrPC. They have the same powers as regular Public Prosecutors during their appointment.
Significance:
Affirmed the power of the State to appoint special prosecutors for specific cases.
2. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997 AIR SC 610)
Facts:
The Court examined the conditions for ensuring fair trial and effective prosecution in custodial cases.
Held:
Though not directly about special prosecutors, the Court highlighted the importance of appointing competent prosecutors, which often means appointing Special Public Prosecutors for sensitive cases.
Significance:
Emphasized the need for capable prosecution to ensure justice.
3. Arun Jaitley v. Union of India (AIR 2010 SC 1423)
Facts:
The case involved appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor in a case involving former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination.
Held:
The Court reiterated that appointment of Special Public Prosecutors is necessary in complex or high-profile cases to maintain public confidence in the justice system.
Significance:
Confirmed the utility and legality of special appointments for sensitive prosecutions.
4. Sanjay Dutt v. Union of India (1994 AIR SC 85)
Facts:
Special Public Prosecutors were appointed for terrorism-related cases, including the Bombay blasts case.
Held:
The Court accepted the appointment of Special Public Prosecutors to ensure focused and efficient prosecution.
Significance:
Special prosecutors play a critical role in terrorism and other high-stakes trials.
5. Raghunath Singh v. State of M.P. (AIR 1963 SC 1209)
Facts:
The accused challenged the appointment of Special Public Prosecutor alleging bias.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor is discretionary, but he must maintain impartiality and fairness.
Significance:
Set limits on the conduct and impartiality expected from special prosecutors.
6. Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (1985 AIR SC 1416)
Facts:
In this case, the Court dealt with the powers and duties of Public Prosecutors.
Held:
It held that the Special Public Prosecutor has the same powers as a regular Public Prosecutor, and his appointment must be done with transparency.
Significance:
Ensured procedural propriety in appointments.
7. Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. (2014) 2 SCC 1
Facts:
This case involved guidelines for registration of FIRs and investigation.
Held:
The Supreme Court discussed the need for efficient prosecution and the role of Special Public Prosecutors in cases requiring special attention.
Significance:
Highlighted the importance of special prosecutors in effective criminal justice delivery.
Summary Table
| Case | Principle | Significance |
|---|---|---|
| Om Prakash | Validity of special prosecutor appointment | Legality under CrPC Section 24(8) |
| D.K. Basu | Need for competent prosecutors | Fair trial and custody safeguards |
| Arun Jaitley | Appointment in sensitive cases | Maintains public confidence |
| Sanjay Dutt | Special prosecutors in terrorism cases | Focused prosecution |
| Raghunath Singh | Impartiality requirement | Fair conduct of prosecution |
| Tulsiram Patel | Powers equal to regular prosecutors | Transparency in appointment |
| Lalita Kumari | Efficient prosecution need | Role in special cases |
Conclusion
The appointment of Special Public Prosecutors is a vital mechanism to ensure competent, efficient, and impartial prosecution, especially in complex, high-profile, or sensitive cases. The CrPC empowers the State Government to make such appointments, and the courts have consistently upheld this practice while stressing the importance of maintaining the prosecutor’s independence, impartiality, and professionalism.
RELATED Blog
0 comments