The Crucial Role of Public Prosecutors in the Indian Legal System

When the police file a chargesheet against an accused person, who actually takes that case into a courtroom and argues it before a judge? It is not the investigating officer, and it is certainly not the victim. It is the Public Prosecutor – a government-appointed legal officer whose job is to represent the State and, by extension, every citizen whose interests are harmed when a crime is committed. Understanding who a Public Prosecutor is, how the role is defined in law, and why it matters is fundamental to understanding how criminal justice actually works in India.

What is a public prosecutor? The statutory definition 🔗

The legal definition of a Public Prosecutor in India comes from Section 2(u) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), which states that a Public Prosecutor means any person appointed under Section 24 of the Code, and includes any person acting under the directions of a Public Prosecutor. With the introduction of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) – which has replaced the CrPC – the definition is now housed under Section 18, carrying forward the same essential meaning.

The definition is deliberately broad. It covers not just the appointed Public Prosecutor but also anyone functioning under that person’s directions. This ensures continuity and delegation within the prosecution system without diluting the office’s authority or accountability.

In plain terms, a Public Prosecutor is a legally trained government officer appointed to conduct criminal prosecutions on behalf of the State. They are not the police. They are not the victim’s personal lawyer. They represent the collective interest of society in seeing that justice is done fairly and according to law.

The public prosecutor as a representative of the state 🔗

One of the most important principles underlying the office of the Public Prosecutor is the idea that a crime is not just a wrong against the individual victim – it is a wrong against society as a whole. As established in Indian legal practice, when a crime is committed against any person or group, it is presumed to have been committed against society at large, and it becomes the duty of the State – not the individual victim – to prosecute the offender.

This is why prosecution in India is a state function. The Public Prosecutor steps into the courtroom as the State’s voice. The rationale is straightforward: if prosecution were left to private individuals, the legal machinery could be misused for personal vendettas or private revenge. By placing this responsibility on a government-appointed officer bound by professional and ethical standards, the system ensures that prosecutions serve the public interest, not private grudges.

How public prosecutors are appointed 🔗

The appointment of Public Prosecutors is a structured process governed by Section 24 of the CrPC and now mirrored in Section 18 of the BNSS, 2023. There are three broad categories:

High Court-level prosecutors: For every High Court, the Central Government or the State Government appoints a Public Prosecutor and may appoint Additional Public Prosecutors, after consultation with the High Court. For the National Capital Territory of Delhi, this power rests exclusively with the Central Government.

District-level prosecutors: The State Government appoints a Public Prosecutor for each district. The District Magistrate, in consultation with the Sessions Judge, prepares a panel of suitable candidates from which the State Government makes appointments.

Special Public Prosecutors: These are appointed for specific cases or a class of cases – often high-profile or sensitive matters – where specialized legal representation is considered necessary.

To be eligible for appointment as a Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor, a person must have at least seven years of experience as a practising advocate. For the post of Director of Prosecution, the requirement is a minimum of ten years of practice, and the appointment must be made with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court.

Crucially, no police officer who has participated in the investigation of a case is eligible to be appointed as the prosecutor in that same case. This separation between investigation and prosecution is a deliberate structural safeguard to prevent any conflict of interest and to maintain the independence of the prosecution.

The public prosecutor is not just the state’s advocate 🔗

A common misconception is that the Public Prosecutor’s only goal is to secure a conviction. That is incorrect and, in fact, contrary to the very purpose of the office. Indian courts have consistently held that an ideal Public Prosecutor must consider themselves an agent of justice – not an agent of the police, not a departmental instrument of the government, and certainly not someone whose success is measured by the number of convictions obtained.

The Allahabad High Court articulated this principle clearly when it ruled that it is the duty of the Public Prosecutor to ensure justice is vindicated and that they should not seek an unrighteous conviction. The purpose of a criminal trial is to determine guilt or innocence, not to confirm the prosecution’s theory at any cost.

The Supreme Court of India, in Shiv Nandan Paswan v. State of Bihar, put it memorably: the Public Prosecutor is not a persecutor but a representative of sovereignty, obligated to govern impartially and ensure justice is done – not merely to win a case. Similarly, in Shiv Kumar v. Hukam Chand (1999), the Supreme Court emphasized that a Public Prosecutor is expected to act as an independent person and function as an officer of the court, not as a representative of a party.

This dual responsibility – vigorous prosecution on one hand, and fair conduct on the other – is what makes the Public Prosecutor’s role genuinely unique in the legal system. They must present the strongest case the evidence supports, but they cannot suppress evidence that helps the accused, cannot examine only witnesses who support the prosecution’s version, and cannot allow the State’s desire for conviction to override their duty to truth.

Independence from police and political influence 🔗

The Public Prosecutor’s independence from the police is not merely procedural – it is foundational. As established under BNSS provisions, once the police file a chargesheet, the Public Prosecutor takes over. The prosecutor has no powers of investigation and cannot interfere in the police’s investigative process. In turn, the police cannot direct the prosecutor on how to conduct the trial.

The Supreme Court in Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1998) underscored that prosecutors must conduct themselves with complete impartiality and fairness so that criminal proceedings are just to both the accused and the State. The court stressed that there must be no arbitrary restrictions on the initiation of investigations or the launching of prosecutions. Political pressure, departmental interests, or institutional convenience cannot be allowed to distort the prosecutor’s independent judgment.

This independence is reinforced by the structural design of the appointment process itself – in many states, prosecutors are drawn from a regular cadre of prosecuting officers, selected through merit-based criteria, which gives them a degree of institutional independence from the executive apparatus.

The hierarchy within the prosecution system 🔗

The prosecution system in India operates through a clear hierarchy. Under Section 18 of the BNSS (earlier Section 24 CrPC), the structure broadly runs from Assistant Public Prosecutors, who appear in Magistrate courts, to Public Prosecutors and Additional Public Prosecutors at the district and sessions court level, to those appointed for High Courts by the Central or State Governments. At the apex of the administrative structure in each state sits the Director of Prosecution, who exercises overall supervision and control over the functioning of prosecution agencies across the state.

This tiered system ensures that the complexity and gravity of cases are matched to the appropriate level of prosecutorial experience and authority.

Why the public prosecutor’s role matters for a fair legal process 🔗

The Public Prosecutor occupies a pivotal position in India’s adversarial legal system. In this system, the prosecution presents its case, the defence contests it, and the judge decides. For this process to deliver justice, both sides must perform their roles with competence and integrity. A weak, biased, or compromised prosecution undermines the entire trial – either wrongly securing the conviction of an innocent person or, as the Supreme Court observed in the Zahira Habibullah v. State of Gujarat (Best Bakery Case), acting more like the defence than the prosecution, allowing guilty persons to escape accountability.

Academic analysis of the prosecution’s role consistently highlights that the prosecutor represents a State dedicated to the administration of justice – not to advancing the interests of one side at the expense of the other. This is what makes the prosecution function genuinely different from private legal representation. The Public Prosecutor’s loyalty is to justice, not to a client.

The Law Commission of India has, over several reports – including the 154th Report and recommendations of the Malimath Committee – repeatedly called for stronger institutional structures, competitive examination-based appointments, and adequate representation of women in the prosecution service. These recommendations reflect a broader recognition that the strength of India’s criminal justice system rests significantly on the quality and independence of its public prosecutors.

The public prosecutor in today’s legal landscape 🔗

With the BNSS replacing the CrPC, the legal framework governing Public Prosecutors has been updated but the core principles remain intact. Section 18 of the BNSS carries forward the essential structure of appointment, eligibility, and function. What has changed is greater clarity on the role of the Directorate of Prosecution, with Section 20 of the BNSS providing more explicit definitions of the responsibilities of the Director, Deputy Director, and Assistant Director of Prosecution – reducing reliance on state-level discretion in defining their functions.

The office of the Public Prosecutor is not a ceremonial one. It sits at the very heart of the criminal justice process, bridging the investigative work of the police and the adjudicative work of the courts. How effectively and impartially that office is exercised determines, in large part, whether the promise of equal justice under law is actually delivered.

What do you think? Given that the Public Prosecutor represents the State and not the victim, should victims have a more formal and enforceable role in influencing how their cases are prosecuted? And with the transition from CrPC to BNSS, do you think the structural reforms introduced in the appointment and oversight of Public Prosecutors are sufficient to ensure genuine independence from political pressure?

References

1. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/show-data?actid=AC_CEN_5_23_000010_197402_1517807320555&sectionId=22390&sectionno=24&orderno=24
2. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/91117739/
3. https://blog.ipleaders.in/meaning-roles-functions-public-prosecutor/
4. https://legalaffairs.gov.in/sites/default/files/184_AU3668.pdf
5. https://www.writinglaw.com/public-prosecutor-in-india/
6. https://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1606/Duty-of-The-Public-Prosecutor-In-The-Criminal-Justice-System.html
7. https://www.jetir.org/papers/JETIR2204865.pdf
8. https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/to-the-point/bharatiya-nyaya-sanhita-&-indian-penal-code/public-prosecutor
9. https://legal-wires.com/lex-o-pedia/55702/
10. https://indraprasthalawreview.in/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/GGSIPU_USLLS_ILR_2020_V1-I2-010-Dr_Mudasir_Bhat_Dr_Mehraj_Ud_Din_Mir-1.pdf
11. https://www.dpceonline.it/index.php/dpceonline/article/download/2088/2221/3287