CJI attacks Govt on appointment of Public Prosecutors | delhi | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
Mar 30, 2017-Thursday
New Delhi
  • Humidity
  • Wind

CJI attacks Govt on appointment of Public Prosecutors

delhi Updated: Jul 31, 2010 15:52 IST

Chief Justice of Indian S H Kapadia today virtually attacked the government for withdrawing the consultation process in the appointment of public prosecutors who play a key role in the criminal justice delivery system.

Justice Kapadia who shared concern on the issue of administration of criminal justice system said judicial reforms can take place only if it is coupled with reforms in the legislations and Bar.

Quoting Section 24 of the CrPC, the CJI said the provision mandated the Government to consult the High Court and the Sessions Court for appointment of public prosecutors, but over the years the process has been given a go bye.

"We should make use of modern technology. We need to amend the rules and bring about these changes, because I personally believe please do not rely or attack only us for judicial reforms. We need the Bar reforms. We equally need Legislative reforms.

"Of course, I would like to ask one question why under Section 24 of CrPC that earlier Public Prosecutors were appointed in consultation with High Courts? Why all Public Prosecutors were very good? Why we do not have those type of Public Prosecutors today? Why is the power taken away?" he posed.

The Chief Justice made the observations in his presidential address at the All India Seminar on Judicial Reforms, which was inaugurated by the President Pratibha Patil.

He appealed to senior advocates to come forward and contribute for reforms in the judiciary and complained that this was not taking place in India as has been the practice in European countries.

The CJI also said a special team of statistical officers would be involved in segregating cases on three fronts by classifying them as "sticky cases", "subverted cases" and "process problem."

Elaborating, he said that sticky case are those which consume considerable time, while subverted cases would be identified as those in which the one of the parties try to delay and in the last category the delay occurs due processing of service like the notice and summons, which account for 50 per cent of the problem.