Criminal Procedure Code

Harpal Singh Chauhan v. State of Uttar Pradesh

(1993) 3 SCC 552: AIR 1993 SC 2436

Facts

The State of Uttar Pradesh appointed District Government Counsel to conduct criminal and civil litigation on its behalf.
The appointments were governed by:
Section 24 CrPC;
statutory consultation requirements; and
provisions in the State’s Legal Remembrancer’s Manual.
Several existing counsel expected renewal or extension of their terms.
The State declined renewal and appointed other persons.
The affected advocates challenged the decisions, alleging:
arbitrariness;
political interference;
absence of proper consultation with the District Judge; and
violation of legitimate expectation.

Section 24 CrPC regulates appointment of Public Prosecutors and Additional Public Prosecutors.
For district appointments, the District Magistrate must prepare a panel in consultation with the Sessions Judge or District Judge as required by the statutory framework.
Consultation must be real and meaningful, not a mere formality.
Appointment as Government Counsel:
is a professional engagement;
involves public responsibility;
and is not an ordinary civil-service post.
An incumbent has no vested or permanent right to renewal merely because they previously held the position.
However, State action must not be:
arbitrary;
mala fide;
discriminatory;
or contrary to statutory procedure.
Administrative manuals may supplement the statute, but cannot override it.
The corresponding BNSS provision governing Public Prosecutors is Section 18.

The Supreme Court rejected the proposition that every existing counsel had an automatic right to continue.
Government prosecution requires continuing confidence in:
competence;
integrity;
professional ability;
and effective court performance.
The State may therefore decide not to renew an engagement.
But the power cannot be exercised solely for political patronage.
The statutory requirement of consultation gives the District Judge an important role because the Judge is institutionally placed to evaluate:
professional conduct;
legal ability;
courtroom performance;
and fairness.
The District Magistrate cannot prepare the panel independently and later seek a ceremonial endorsement.
Likewise, the Government cannot select a person wholly outside a properly prepared panel where the statutory scheme requires panel-based appointment.
The Court distinguished:
absence of a right to renewal; from
absence of a right to lawful consideration.
An incumbent could not demand appointment, but could insist that the State follow:
the CrPC;
fair procedure;
and relevant criteria.
Recommendations under the Legal Remembrancer’s Manual had to be read consistently with Section 24.
Where statutory consultation was absent or the panel was improperly constituted, the appointment process could not stand merely because the Government possessed broad executive discretion.

The Supreme Court held that District Government Counsel have no enforceable right to automatic renewal.
Nevertheless, appointments must comply strictly with Section 24 and meaningful judicial consultation.
The State’s discretion remains reviewable for arbitrariness and statutory non-compliance.
The case treats prosecution appointments as a public criminal-justice function rather than political patronage. ( )