The Kerala High Court clarified that the appointment of public prosecutors under the BNSS Guidelines does not require consultations under Section 183 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Division Bench considered the scope and applicability of the BNSS Guidelines relating to the appointment of public prosecutors in the State of Kerala and examined whether the procedure mandated any obligation for the Advocate General to consult the High Court before recommending names for appointment. The petition before the Court challenged the manner in which appointments had been made, contending that the Advocate General had not sought the High Court’s opinion or consultation as contemplated by Section 183 and the BNSS Guidelines.
The Court observed that the BNSS Guidelines, designed to streamline and set standards for the appointment of public prosecutors, must be understood in the context of statutory provisions governing prosecution services. The Bench noted that Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure contemplates the appointment of public prosecutors by the State Government in consultation with the Advocate General, while Section 25 relates to additional public prosecutors. In addressing the contention that the Advocate General was required to consult the High Court for appointments under the BNSS Guidelines, the Court held that there was no such statutory mandate. The High Court emphasised that Section 183, which pertains to consultations between the State Government and the High Court before making rules under the Code of Criminal Procedure, did not extend to the appointment of public prosecutors under the guidelines. According to the Court, consultations under Section 183 are necessary only when the State Government is establishing rules that affect the administration of criminal justice, and the appointment of public prosecutors under the BNSS Guidelines does not trigger that requirement.
In its reasoning, the High Court clarified that the Advocate General’s role under Section 24 is to be consulted by the State Government before appointing public prosecutors, and that this consultation requirement is limited to the statutory provision itself. The Court explained that the BNSS Guidelines were administrative instructions aimed at improving prosecutorial standards and did not alter or expand statutory consultation obligations to include the High Court. The Bench found that there was no express provision in the guidelines or the statute that prescribed High Court consultation in such appointments, and therefore the appointment process followed by the Advocate General and the State Government did not violate any legal provision by excluding High Court consultation.
The High Court also addressed the relationship between the statutory framework and the administrative guidelines, observing that guidelines cannot override or expand statutory requirements. The Court held that the BNSS Guidelines must operate within the contours of the Code of Criminal Procedure and cannot impose additional procedural obligations beyond what the statute prescribes. In the absence of a clear legislative command to involve the High Court in consultations for public prosecutor appointments, the process followed by the Advocate General was upheld as lawful. The Court emphasised that it was not diminishing the importance of prosecutorial oversight but was interpreting the applicable legal framework accurately in accordance with statutory mandates.
The State Government’s actions and the role of the Advocate General in recommending appointments were examined to determine whether there was any constitutional or statutory infirmity. The High Court found that the procedural steps adopted, which involved consultation between the Advocate General and the State Government without involving the High Court, were consistent with Sections 24 and 25 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Bench held that this approach did not contravene any provision of Section 183 or the BNSS Guidelines.
In concluding its judgment, the Kerala High Court dismissed the petition challenging the appointment process and reaffirmed that consultations for rule‑making under Section 183 are distinct from the statutory consultation between the State Government and the Advocate General for public prosecutor appointments. The Court’s ruling clarified the extent and limits of consultative obligations under the statute and administrative guidelines, reinforcing the statutory framework governing the appointment of public prosecutors and affirming that no additional consultation with the High Court is required in this context.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.