The Allahabad High Court addressed a contentious practice in Uttar Pradesh whereby police authorities were issuing instructions via email to government advocates handling prosecutions in criminal cases. The issue came before a Division Bench which expressed concern over the practice of police officials sending directives to law officers, often through informal electronic communication, in relation to various aspects of prosecution and court appearances. The High Court observed that such email instructions undermined the independence of prosecution, blurred the lines between investigative and prosecutorial functions, and risked compromising the integrity of criminal justice administration.
In delivering its ruling, the Court noted that the system of issuing instructions to government advocates through emails or other unregulated modes created a situation where police personnel effectively attempted to influence prosecutorial strategy, submissions in court, and legal approaches in ongoing matters. The bench underscored the need for clear separation between investigation and prosecution roles to preserve due process and uphold constitutional guarantees related to fair trial and institutional autonomy. It observed that while the police are responsible for investigation and law enforcement, the conduct of prosecution and legal arguments in court should be professionally managed by the appointed government legal officers without undue interference.
The Court specifically addressed what had been colloquially referred to as the “pairokar” system, a practice in some districts where police officials would send routine instructions to government advocates on case management, filing of responses, and court appearances. The bench stated that such practice was impermissible and detracted from established norms which entrust prosecution functions to dedicated legal officers appointed for that purpose. It emphasised that government advocates and public prosecutors should act on the basis of law, evidence, and prosecutorial strategy determined in accordance with legal principles, rather than on ad hoc directives from investigators.
In explaining its rationale, the High Court drew attention to the statutory framework governing prosecution. It noted that the Code of Criminal Procedure envisages the role of public prosecutors and government pleaders as legal functionaries distinct from the investigating machinery. Investigators are tasked with gathering evidence and preparing the case, but it is for the prosecution to independently assess the material and present the State’s case in court. The Court stressed that any semblance of undue control by non-legal officials over prosecutorial actions erodes this separation and may lead to prejudicial outcomes.
The bench further observed that the practice of issuing email instructions, even if well intended, lacked institutional oversight and could lead to inconsistent and arbitrary directions that are not grounded in legal expertise. The High Court underscored that prosecution demands nuanced legal understanding and discretion that must be exercised by trained advocates, free from extraneous influence. Accordingly, it declared that police authorities must refrain from issuing instructions to government advocates through emails or similar informal channels, and that the practice of “pairokar” directives should cease forthwith.
The Court’s order mandates that prosecutorial instructions flow only through established channels and in compliance with procedural norms, reinforcing that investigators and legal officers must respect their respective functional boundaries. This development is aimed at strengthening the independence of prosecution and ensuring that criminal cases are managed by competent legal professionals without undue external inputs affecting legal strategy or court submissions.
By curtailing the email instruction practice, the Allahabad High Court reaffirmed the importance of maintaining clarity in roles between investigation and prosecution, and reinforced judicial oversight over practices that risk diluting legal integrity. The judgment serves as a directive to law enforcement agencies that institutional propriety and adherence to legal frameworks are indispensable for fair and impartial criminal justice delivery, and that any informal practices that compromise these principles will not be permitted to continue.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.