Report No. 154
Issue No. 3-Reforms in Prosecuting Agency
Views of Judges
Nine judges are in favour of a separate cadre of Public Prosecutors so it can function independently from the control of police and politicians. Some of them are of the view that the such Directorate of Prosecution be headed by a Judicial Officer not below the rank of District Judge. He may be appointed by promotion and/or by direct recruitment of advocates with sufficient experience. Justice K.N. Goyal (Retd.) partly agreed and has given elaborate suggestions vide para 'A', clause 4, pages 1 to 3, to his reply whereas, three judges either have not expressed their views or are silent on the issue.
Thirty-one judicial officers have responded saying that there should be a separate cadre of Public Prosecution, headed by Director of Prosecution'. Some of them have suggested that the Director should be appointed by the High Court of the State. They also have suggested qualifications for the other Prosecutors. Head of the Directorate should be a person who had been a judge of High court for at least five years or worked as Advocate-General for five years or worked as Public Prosecutor in the High court for a period of 10 years.
Ten officers have not directly responded to the issue and three partly agreed. The Institute of Judicial Training & Research (U.P.) Lucknow has responded in the affirmative, however, it did not agree with the proposal of Women Public Prosecutors and Assistant Public Prosecutors.
Views of Advocates/Government Pleaders/Bar Associations
Ten advocates are of the view that there should be a separate independent cadre of Public Prosecutors which should be an autonomous body, preferably headed by a judicial officer of the rank of Sessions Judge. One of them has suggested that it should be headed by the District Attorney at the District level, Advocate-General at the State level and Attorney General of India at the National level. Other Advocates are silent on the point.
The Madras Bar Association has suggested that for the Sessions Court, Members of Bar Association with 7 years experience and Director and Dy. Director must be appointed with experience of 15 years and with the concurrence of the High Court. For other Courts the proposed cadre people may be appointed.
Views of Academicians
Dr. K.N. Chandrasekharan Pillai has expressed his view saying that this branch should not oversee the investigation or have any relation with the judiciary. It should be independent. A Director of Public Prosecution having degree of LL.B. with 10 years Bar experience could be the head of this branch. It should be a post that can be filled by way of promotion of eligible candidates from among the Public Prosecutors who are in turn be appointed only by way of competitive test/interview. Professor H.C. Dholakia has also suggested to appoint women prosecutors to conduct the case under sections 354, 376, 376A to 376E and 509 of I.P.C. Professor B.B. Pande and Professor A.K. Saxena have not responded.
Views of State Law Commission
Himachal Pradesh Law Commission has agreed to what has been proposed by Law Commission of India.
Views of Police Officers
Mr. C: Dinakar, Director-General of Police, C.O.D. Training, Special Unit, Bangalore and Mr. H.J. Dora, I.P.S. Additional Director-General of Police, C.I.D., Hyderabad have responded in the affirmative, however, Mr. C. Anjaneva Reddy, I.P.S. D.G. (Vig. & Ex.), Hyderabad has drawn the attention to National Police Commission's Fourth Report.
Views of State Governments
The Government of Karnataka has forwarded a note on the structure of the system of Directorate of Prosecuting Agency which is functioning in the said state and also informed that 14th report of Law Commission of India was implemented to establish the Directorate of Prosecution. The Government of Gujarat has supported the proposal of the Law Commission of India.