Face2News/Chandigarh

For the past several years, the post of Director of Prosecution (DoP), UT Chandigarh Administrationhas been filled up (on deputation basis) from a Superior Judicial Service rank Officer from the State of Haryana. Apart from DoP, such Officer is also Legal Remembrancer (LR) of UT Administration.

Currently, Vijay James, an Additional District & Sessions Judge(ADSJ) from the State of Haryana i.e. a member of Haryana Superior Judicial Service (HSJS) is posted as LR cum DoP, UT Chandigarh since April, 2021.

Meanwhile, an Advocate at Punjab & Haryana High Court, Hemant Kumar, has questioned the aforementioned practice prevalent in Chandigarh i.e. posting of serving ADSJ rank Judge as DoP by citing Section 25A of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). He has sent a representation to UT Administrator, His Advisor, Home Secretary etc. along with Registrar-General of Punjab & Haryana High Court in this regard alleging violation of above referred provision in CrPC.

The Advocate asserted that Section 25A was inserted in CrPC via Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 by Parliament of India and which got enforced across the country with effect from June 23, 2006.

The Advocate asserted that Section 25A was inserted in CrPC via Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 by Parliament of India and which got enforced across the country with effect from June 23, 2006.As per Sec 25A(1), the State Government ( UT Administration) may establish a Directorate of Prosecution consisting of a Director of Prosecution and as many Deputy Directors of Prosecution as it thinks fit. Further Sec 25A(2) provides that a person shall be eligible to be appointed as a Director of Prosecution or a Deputy Director of Prosecution, only if he has been in practice as an Advocate for not less than ten years and such appointment shall be made with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court.

As per Sec 25A(1), the State Government ( UT Administration) may establish a Directorate of Prosecution consisting of a Director of Prosecution and as many Deputy Directors of Prosecution as it thinks fit. Further Sec 25A(2) provides that a person shall be eligible to be appointed as a Director of Prosecution or a Deputy Director of Prosecution, only if he has been in practice as an Advocate for not less than ten years and such appointment shall be made with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court.

Hemant further adds that Section 25 A CrPC has not been suitably amended or entirely substituted in respect of UT Chandigarh by Parliament of India till date unlike as has been done in case of UTs of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh which has been although done by Union Home Ministry via issuance of Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir/Ladakh Reorganization (Adaption of Central Laws) Order(s), 2020 wherein different set of provision(s) (i.e. different from original Sec 25A CrPC) have been made pertaining to appointment to the post of Director-General /Director of Directorate of Prosecution in respect of UT of J&K and UT of Ladakh.

Hence in view of the above, Section 25A of CrPC would apply to the UT Chandigarh and it would have to strictly complied by the Administration in entirety as it exists i.e. a person shall be eligible to be appointed as a Director of Prosecution only if he has been in practice as an Advocate for not less than ten years and such appointment shall be made with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court.

However, if UT Chandigarh Administration still desires to post/appoint an Additional District & Sessions Judge rank Officer from the State of Haryana (or Punjab) on deputation basis as Director of Prosecution, UT Chandigarh, then an appropriate amendment in Sec 25A CrPC (as applicable to UT Chandigarh) is warranted otherwise it amounts to clear violation of ibid Sec 25A CrPC by UT Chandigarh Administration, opines Hemant.