Narasimmabalan v. Union of India
Case brief
What is this about?
The Court held that the 2003 Recruitment Rules for the post of Director of Prosecution in Puducherry were illegal and inconsistent with Section 25-A of the CrPC, which mandates ten years of advocacy practice. The writ petition was allowed. The Court did not strike down the Rules with prospective effect, permitting the Government to amend them.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.03.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.P.NO.4205 OF 2020 AND W.M.P.NOS.4973 AND 4969 OF 2020
Narasimmabalan .. Petitioner
.Vs.
- Union of India, Rep. by The Chief Secretary to Government,
Government of Puducherry,
Puducherry.
- The Secretary to Government, Department of Law, Government of Puducherry,
Puducherry.
- The Registrar (District Judiciary), High Court, Madras, Chennai 600 104.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the 2003 Recruitment Rules for Director of Prosecution are in conformity with Section 25-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Whether the qualification for appointment as Director of Prosecution requires ten years of practice as an advocate.
Whether the mode of recruitment by promotion, deputation, or absorption for the post of Director of Prosecution is legal.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Narasimmabalan
- respondent
Union of India
- respondent
Secretary to Government, Department of Law, Government of Puducherry
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court