CHENNAI: The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has observed that the State government is appointing Government Pleaders, Public Prosecutors, and Law Officers based on political allegiance rather than merit.
Justice B Pugalendhi made the observation while hearing a petition filed by one Rajkumar, who sought a suspension of his sentence. Rajkumar had been convicted by a Special Court for attempting to rape a woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste.
During the hearing, the petitioner argued that the allegations were false and rooted in personal enmity. Opposing this, the Government Advocate stated that the victim had sustained four injuries, as recorded in the Accident Register. However, the court noted that this crucial document was neither marked before the trial court nor presented to the doctor during examination.
The court remarked that the law officer had either deliberately avoided marking the document or lacked basic knowledge of criminal trials. Justice Pugalendhi noted that in some instances, the only qualification of appointed law officers appeared to be involvement in menial political activities, such as sticking election posters.
"It is deeply disturbing to note that the State appears to be appointing Law Officers not on merit, but on proximity to the ruling dispensation," the court said, adding that such practices strike at the root of professional standards.
The court further highlighted that many appointees lack the requisite legal acumen and fail to develop necessary skills even after taking office, causing litigants to suffer.
“A significant number of such appointees lack the requisite competence and legal acumen to effectively conduct cases. A more troubling aspect is that even after their appointment as Law Officers, there is a lack of effort in acquiring the necessary skills to effectively defend cases. The inevitable consequence is that litigants are left to suffer, and the administration of justice itself stands compromised,” the court said.
Despite earlier directions to frame selection guidelines and a recommendation by the Director of Prosecution to remove the prosecutor concerned for lapses, no action was taken. Consequently, the court impleaded the District Collector suo motu and directed a decision within four weeks.