Declaring that “a Public Prosecutor is the life and blood of a Court of law,” former District and Sessions Judge and former Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Chandigarh, Dr. M.M. Dhonchak has moved the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking permission to intervene in the court’s suo motu public interest litigation concerning the depleting strength of Public Prosecutors and Government Pleaders in Haryana district courts. Along with seeking impleadment, he has urged the court to consider a series of structural reforms aimed at improving the quality, recruitment and accountability of prosecutors.
The intervention application has been filed in the suo motu petition initiated after the High Court took cognisance of the dwindling strength of Public Prosecutors and Government Pleaders in Haryana.
Highlighting his judicial experience, the applicant submitted that he had served as District and Sessions Judge in Haryana, held several positions in the Registry of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, including Registrar (Establishment), Registrar (Computerisation) and Registrar (Grouping/Classification), and later served as Presiding Officer of DRT-II, Chandigarh. He also pointed to his doctoral research on criminal justice to contend that he was well-equipped to assist the court on the issues arising in the PIL.
The application proposes that the mode of recruitment for Public Prosecutors should be aligned with that followed for recruitment to the judicial service. It suggests that candidates who are unable to secure appointment as Civil Judges may be considered for appointment as Public Prosecutors on the pattern of allied services, asserting that such a system would improve the quality of prosecution.
As an interim measure, the applicant has suggested that Public Prosecutors presently serving in government offices should be interviewed and selected by a committee comprising five or six senior High Court judges for assignments in district courts and be granted an incentive of 10 to 20 per cent of their basic pay.
The applicant has further contended that there is a “sea of difference” between the calibre and performance of defence counsel and Public Prosecutors in district courts and that conviction rates are not likely to improve until this gap is minimised. According to the application, the same performance gap also adversely affects the Government’s interests in civil litigation.
Drawing upon his doctoral research, Dr. Dhonchak has criticised what he describes as deficiencies in the conduct of criminal trials, stating that framing of charges is at times left to stenographers or Public Prosecutors instead of being undertaken personally by the Sessions Judge after due deliberation and legal analysis.
The application reproduces several observations from the applicant’s research, including:
”A Sessions Judge is not expected to be a mute spectator or a silent referee.”
It also states:”Framing of charges is not a perfunctory ritual. It is a pivotal and sacrosanct stage in a criminal trial.”
Placing reliance on the Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Gujarat versus Kishanbhai, the applicant submitted that the apex court had directed State Governments to formulate procedures for taking departmental action against investigating and prosecuting officials responsible for failed prosecutions owing to negligence or culpable lapses. He contended that effective implementation of those directions requires a competent and responsive prosecution service.
The application describes a competent Public Prosecutor as “the life and blood of a Court of law if he is indeed worth his salt and competent enough to occupy that status and position.”
Besides seeking permission to intervene, the applicant has prayed that even if the High Court does not permit his impleadment, the suggestions contained in the application may nevertheless be considered while adjudicating the pending suo motu PIL for its proper and effective adjudication.