The High Court of Delhi has decided to "meet & interview" advocates recommended by the Govt of Delhi for appointment as public prosecutors in the HC. On Tuesday, a batch of shortlisted Advocates met a panel of Judges in response to an earlier SMS from the court administration on a "meeting to conduct interview" for the post of additional public prosecutor (APP).
The process is expected to continue for the next few days but has left the Delhi Govt troubled, with sources alleging such an "interview" was unheard of when the names were cleared by the state government & approved by the lieutenant governor.
In response, highly placed sources in the HC said that screening of APP candidates has always been conducted by the full Court, which in the past even removed some names from the list. It, however, cannot propose replacement names. Court sources were also at pains to point out that it was an "interaction" & not strictly an interview, adding that complaints about a few candidates having FIRs registered against them was a cause for concern.
"It is just a formality really," insisted a senior Judge. "Instead of the full court spending time on each candidate sent by the government, & since the number is on the higher side, the acting chief justice formed a committee to collect the details about the candidates & place them before the full court for an appropriate decision."
Section 24 of the Criminal Procedures Code is the bone of contention. Read simply. it says that "For every high court, the central government or the state government shall, after consultation with the high court, appoint a public prosecutor & may also appoint one or more additional public prosecutors, for conducting in such court, any prosecution, appeal or other proceeding on behalf of the central government or state government, as the case may be."
The thinking in the Govt is that consultation doesn't mean the court conducts the selection process afresh. "The interview of candidates has been already conducted by the state government," a government official underlined. The official added that even if an FIR was registered against a candidate, the accusations needed to be investigated. A court source argued, "If a candidate has an FIR against his or her name, we will naturally object, but we are only trying to find out if the person is suitable for the job."
Advocate Amit Sahni has written a letter to the Chief Justice of India about the issue, saying that "consultation" should mean a free & fair discussion, not the selection of candidates. A high court judge reiterated that "it is not an interview" while explaining that some recommended advocates had mostly practiced outside the high court, necessitating an interaction to learn about them & their work.
(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the LatestLaws staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
Source Link
Picture Source :
