Dismissed

R.Gokul Prasad v. Union of India and Others

Kerala HC8 Jan 2016WP(C)/4866/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Public Interest Litigation seeking a writ mandamus to establish a separate Directorate of Prosecution as recommended by the 154th Law Commission. The High Court held that an existing Directorate had been set up but declined to direct full implementation of Law Commission recommendations, dismissing the petition as a matter of public policy for the Government.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition closed with no directions issued for establishment of a specific cadre or full Directorate of Prosecution.

R.Gokul Prasad Vs Union of India and… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/18TH POUSHA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 4866 of 2008 (S)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

R.GOKUL PRASAD, AGED 40 YEARS S/O.LATE A.GOPINATHAN, 7/845 (22), "PALM SHADES" AYYAPURAM, KALPATHY, PALAKKAD.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH SRI.V.C.MADHAVANKUTTY

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CABINET SECRETARY, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI.

¶11

2. SECRETARY, LAW DEPARTMENT CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI.

¶12

3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

4. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF LAW, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

Addl.5. KERALA ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTORS' ASSOCIATION REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY T.A.NAHAS NAHAS NIVAS, KALLIYODE, PANAVOOR.P.O. NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -695 568.

¶15

ADDL.R5 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 24/06/2014 IN IA 7956/2014.

¶16

RADDL 5 BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY RADDL 5 BY ADV. SMT.N.SANTHA RADDL 5 BY ADV. SRI.K.A.BALAN RADDL 5 BY ADV. SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO RADDL 5 BY ADV. SRI.S.A.ANAND R3 & 4 BY SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.GIRIJA GOPAL

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-012016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

ASHOK BHUSHAN, C.J. & A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶19

================

¶20

W.P. (C) No. 4866 of 2008

¶21

==================

¶22

Dated this, the 8^th day of January, 2016

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

Shaffique, J.

¶25

This writ petition has been filed as a Public Interest Litigation

¶26

seeking the following relief;

¶27

“(a) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writs, directions or orders commanding the respondents to take appropriate action to establish Directorate of Prosecution as recommended by the 154^th Law Commission of India expeditiously.”

¶28

According to the petitioner, though there had been

¶29

recommendations by the 154^th Law Commission that a separate Directorate has to be constituted for the purpose of prosecuting the cases in various courts, no action had been taken by the Government and Directorate of Prosecution has not been constituted.

¶30

Counter affidavit has been filed by the 3^rd respondent inter alia stating at paragraphs 4 and 5 as under;

¶31

W.P(C) No.4866/2008

¶32

-:2:-

¶33

“4) It is submitted that in the State of Kerala there is no Cadre of prosecuting offices existing. The present Directorate of Prosecution Kerala, Ernakulam, was set up primarily for the administration of Public Prosecution in the State, which was established in the year 2000, vide G.O (Ms). No.224/2000/Home dated 13/10/2000 and started functioning in 2001 onwards. Subsequently, Government transferred the administrative control of all Deputy Directors of Prosecution and Assistant Public Prosecutors in the State from respective District Collectors to the Director General of Prosecution Kerala, vide G.O(Rt.) No.621/2001/Home dated 14.2.2001. Government had felt that the formation of a Directorate of Prosecution headed by the Director General of Prosecution would ensure greater control over the working of Assistant Public Prosecutors and Deputy Directors of Prosecution and increase their accountability and thus lead to greater rate of conviction in criminal cases.

¶34

5) It is further submitted that at present there are 141 Public Prosecution Offices in the State including Directorate of Prosecution at apex level: 14 Deputy Directors of Prosecution function at district level and 125 Assistant Public Prosecutor Offices are attached to various Judicial First Class Magistrate Courts. In addition to that, the Government have created 24 posts of Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade II, attached to the newly established Temporary Judicial First Class

¶35

W.P(C) No.4866/2008

¶36

-:3:-

¶37

Magistrate Courts in the State, vide G.O.(Ms) No.150/2014/Home dated 1.8.2014. Also, Government accorded sanction for the continuance of these posts created for the effective functioning of Temporary Judicial First Class Magistrate Courts established under 13^th Finance Commission, Award for a period of one more year with effect from 01.04.2015, vide G.O(Ms.) No.68/2015/Home dated 31.3.2015. At present, the Director General of Prosecution Kerala exercises total control over the administrative, establishment and financial matters with respect to the Deputy Directors of Prosecution and Assistant Public Prosecutors in the State.

¶38

Having regard to the fact that the Directorate of Prosecution, Kerala has been set up for the administration of Public Prosecution in the State as stated in the counter affidavit and it is further indicated that a regular cadre of Prosecutors cannot be made by the Government taking into account the present situation in the State, we do not think that this Court will be justified in issuing any direction as sought for in the writ petition. That apart, the only relief sought for is to establish Directorate of Prosecution as recommended by the 154^th Law Commission of India. The Directorate of Prosecution has already been established. But it may not be possible for this Court to

¶39

W.P(C) No.4866/2008

¶40

-:4:-

¶41

direct that all the recommendations of the Law Commission are to be implemented. It is for the Government to consider such issues being a matter coming within the realm of public policy.

¶42

Under such circumstances, we do not think that any further directions are required to be passed in the case. Taking on record

¶43

the counter affidavit filed in this matter and the submissions made thereon, this writ petition is closed.

¶44

Sd/- ASHOK BHUSHAN, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE

¶47

Rp8/1/2016

¶48

//True Copy//

¶49

PS to Judge

R.Gokul Prasad v. Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Gokul Prasad v. Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sojan George Vs Siji

Nandakumar Vs P.S. Krishna Pillai

Manmith T.N. Vs the Chief Manager

The Kasaragod District Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Vs Radha K.A.

C.A Joy Vs the Superintendent of Police,Aluva 683101

Shiju Raphel Vs Inspector of Police