Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Joymalya Bagchi held that a contractual Public Prosecutor cannot seek regularisation in absence of any statutory or constitutional right, as such relief would contravene the structured appointment procedure under the CrPC and applicable state rules. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Anupam Chakraborty v. State of West Bengal & Ors. (2025). 

What was the Background of Anupam Chakraborty v. State of West Bengal & Ors., Case  ? 

• The petitioner was engaged by the District Magistrate, Purulia on 20 June 2014 to discharge functions as an Assistant Public Prosecutor for State cases in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. This engagement was made on a contractual basis to address a vacancy in the post. 
• The petitioner was to be paid fees at the rate of Rs. 459 per appearance for a maximum of two cases per day. Subsequently, the petitioner was also assigned to prosecute cases in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Raghunathpur. 
• The petitioner sought enhancement of his fee and filed an Original Application before the State Administrative Tribunal seeking regularisation of his services. The Tribunal initially allowed his application by an order dated 16 December 2022. 
• The Principal Secretary, Judicial Department, Government of West Bengal rejected the petitioner's claim on 12 June 2023.  
• The petitioner then moved the Tribunal again seeking multiple reliefs including setting aside the order of the Principal Secretary, regularisation of his service, job security till retirement, and equal pay. 
• The Tribunal, on reconsideration, noted that the petitioner was engaged only on a contractual basis and not through any regular appointment. The Tribunal found his claim for regularisation or pay parity with regularly appointed Assistant Public Prosecutors to be unsustainable in law. 
• Before the High Court, the petitioner submitted that his current remuneration was inadequate and had not been revised in over eleven years. He argued that he should at least be paid fees equivalent to panel lawyers.  
• The State submitted that there was no law under which the petitioner could claim such relief. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court observed that the petitioner had himself been requesting the District Magistrate of Purulia to allow him to continue in the role on a contractual basis to earn a livelihood. 
• The Court noted that the petitioner had not been able to establish any right either statutory or constitutional to deserve the relief of regularisation. The appointment of Additional Public Prosecutors is a structured procedure as provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the relevant Rules prevalent in the particular State. 
• The Court observed that a claim for regularisation of a person working on the said post on contractual basis cannot be entertained as such relief would be contrary to law. 
• The Court noted that the appointment of Public Prosecutors and Additional Public Prosecutors was earlier governed by Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (1973) (CrPC) and now by Section 18 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).  
• Both provisions lay down that such appointments must be made by the State Government in consultation with the District Magistrate and the Sessions Judge, and only from among those who have practised as advocates for at least seven years. 
• The Court observed that where a regular cadre of prosecuting officers exists, appointments are to be made only from within the cadre, unless the State Government finds no suitable person available in it. 
• The Tribunal observed that the petitioner was engaged only on a contractual basis and not through any regular appointments. It also observed that the petitioner had requested continued engagement due to livelihood concerns. 
• The High Court observed that there was no law under which the petitioner could claim relief for regularisation. However, taking note of the petitioner's grievance regarding inadequate fees, the High Court granted liberty to him to approach the authorities for reconsideration of the fee. 

Who are Public Prosecutors? 

• Public Prosecutors are legal officers appointed by the Central Government or State Government to conduct prosecutions, appeals, and other proceedings on behalf of the government in courts, as specified in Section 18(1).  
• They are appointed after consultation with the relevant High Court and must have at least seven years of practice as an advocate to be eligible for the position under Section 18(7). 
• For every High Court, the government appoints a Public Prosecutor and may also appoint Additional Public Prosecutors to handle cases at that level [Section 18(1)]. 
• For every district, the State Government appoints a Public Prosecutor and may appoint Additional Public Prosecutors for district-level prosecutions [Section 18(3)]. 
• The appointment process involves the District Magistrate preparing a panel of suitable candidates in consultation with the Sessions Judge [Section 18(4)], and the State Government can only appoint from this approved panel [Section 18(5)]. However, if a state has a regular cadre of prosecuting officers, appointments must be made from within that cadre unless no suitable person is available [Section 18(6)]. 
• Special Public Prosecutors can be appointed for specific cases or classes of cases, requiring a minimum of ten years of practice as an advocate [Section 18(8)].  
• The law also allows victims to engage their own advocate to assist the prosecution in such cases [Section 18(8) proviso]. 
• Public Prosecutors serve as the government's legal representatives in criminal proceedings, ensuring that prosecutions are conducted effectively and in accordance with the law. They play a crucial role in the criminal justice system by presenting the state's case against accused persons in court.