Navigating Justice: The Duties of a Prosecutor

In India’s adversarial criminal justice system, the public prosecutor occupies a position unlike any other legal role. They are not simply a lawyer fighting to win – they are, as courts have repeatedly held, a minister of justice. This distinction is not just philosophical. It shapes every decision a prosecutor makes, from the charges they choose to press to the evidence they decide to place before the court. Understanding the duties of a prosecutor is essential not just for law students, but for anyone who wants to grasp how justice is supposed to work in practice.

Who is a public prosecutor? 🔗

A crime in India is treated as a wrong against society at large, not merely against the individual victim. This is why the State – and not the victim – prosecutes the accused. The public prosecutor is the State’s representative in this process, appointed under Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), now replaced by the corresponding provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). They appear before courts on behalf of the government and are charged with statutory duties that go well beyond advocacy.

The primary duty of the public prosecutor is to ensure justice is served while maintaining the rights of the accused. This is the foundational principle from which all other duties flow.

Justice over conviction: the core duty 🔗

Perhaps the most important thing to understand about a prosecutor’s role is what it is not. It is not the duty of the prosecutor to secure a conviction, nor should any prosecutor feel pride or satisfaction in the mere fact of success. The prosecutor’s goal is truth, not victory.

The Allahabad High Court settled this position clearly – a public prosecutor must see that justice is vindicated and must not obtain an unrighteous conviction. The prosecution of the accused must be conducted with the utmost fairness, and there must be no room for using the legal system as a vehicle for vengeance, whether personal or political.

In Shiv Nandan Paswan v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court elaborated on this, holding that an ideal public prosecutor is not concerned with securing convictions or satisfying government departments. The prosecutor must consider themselves an agent of justice – a phrase that carries significant legal weight.

Duty to the court, the accused, and the victim 🔗

The prosecutor has a duty to the State and the victims, to the accused, and to the court. This four-way obligation is what makes the role genuinely complex. It is not enough to present the strongest possible case for the prosecution – the prosecutor must do so fairly, within the bounds of law, and without suppressing evidence that may assist the accused.

Duties towards the court 🔗

The public prosecutor must act impartially and independently to assist the judge in delivering justice. They are an officer of the court, which means their first loyalty is to the administration of justice, not to the police, the investigating agency, or even the government. The prosecutor must never mislead the court, must not suppress material facts, and must always present the case with precision and fairness.

Duties towards the accused 🔗

This is where many people are surprised. A prosecutor has real obligations towards the very person they are prosecuting. The public prosecutor cannot aggravate facts against the accused, cannot withhold a witness simply because their testimony might weaken the prosecution’s case, and cannot deny the accused any legitimate benefit they are entitled to during trial.

The Bar Council of India’s rules on professional conduct make this explicit: a prosecutor acting as an advocate must ensure that their prosecution does not lead to the conviction of an innocent person, and the suppression of any material capable of establishing the innocence of the accused must be scrupulously avoided.

Duties towards victims and witnesses 🔗

The primary duty of the prosecutor is to ensure that the victim is protected and that the charge against the accused is proved beyond reasonable doubt. This involves examining victims and witnesses carefully in court, ensuring all witnesses mentioned in the charge sheet are called, conducting meaningful cross-examination of defence witnesses, and producing all necessary documents. Prosecutors also bear responsibility for ensuring witnesses are not harassed or left unexamined.

Examining and scrutinising charges 🔗

Before proceeding to trial, a prosecutor must carefully examine the charges laid out in the police charge sheet. This is not a rubber-stamp exercise. The prosecutor has an independent responsibility to assess whether the evidence supports the charges, whether the charges are legally sustainable, and whether prosecution is in the public interest. The prosecutor must play an independent role at every step of the criminal proceeding, not merely follow the police’s lead.

The right to withdraw from prosecution, known as nolle prosequi, is also available to the public prosecutor under Section 321 of the CrPC (now mirrored in the BNSS). This power allows the prosecutor to drop charges when continuing a prosecution would not serve the ends of justice – a decision that squarely vests with the prosecutor, not the police or the government.

The duty to disclose evidence fairly 🔗

One of the most debated aspects of prosecutorial duty globally – and increasingly in India – is the obligation of fair disclosure. A prosecutor must not selectively present only evidence that supports the prosecution’s theory. If there is material in their possession that could benefit the defence or establish innocence, it must not be concealed.

In India, the absence of a specific provision mandating fair disclosure remains a significant gap in the criminal justice framework. The CrPC and the BNSS mandate production of certain documents to the accused, but there is no codified equivalent of the American Brady v. Maryland rule, which requires prosecutors to disclose any exculpatory evidence – evidence that could exonerate or benefit the accused.

Implementing a Brady-like rule would enhance transparency, prevent wrongful convictions and uphold the integrity of trials by ensuring that no crucial evidence is withheld from the accused. The Supreme Court’s decision in Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (2004) – the Best Bakery Case – was a stark reminder of what happens when this principle is ignored. The court noted that prosecutors in that case acted more like the defence rather than focusing on presenting the truth before the court, leading to a grave miscarriage of justice.

Independence from police and executive influence 🔗

A critical – and often under-appreciated – duty of the public prosecutor is to maintain independence from the police and the executive. Prosecutors are expected to be independent of the executive and from all external influences, including the police and the investigation process.

This independence is not merely theoretical. In Vineet Narain v. Union of India, the Supreme Court emphasised the need to ensure that there are no arbitrary restrictions on the initiation of investigations or launching of prosecutions, particularly in cases involving powerful individuals. The prosecutor represents the State, not the police. They are not an extension of the investigating agency but an independent officer of the court.

In Union of India v. Sushil Kumar Modi, the Supreme Court quoted Lord Denning’s observations on the independent role of the prosecutor – a recognition that impartiality and independence are not optional qualities but fundamental to the role itself.

The duty to conduct a speedy and fair trial 🔗

The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. The prosecutor has an active responsibility to contribute to this right – by ensuring witnesses are ready, documents are on record, and the trial proceeds without unnecessary delays caused by the prosecution’s side.

Fair trial also means more than just procedural compliance. It requires a fair prosecutor and an atmosphere of judicial impartiality. A prosecutor who acts more like defence counsel – by softening the case, failing to examine key witnesses, or deliberately presenting a weak argument – is as much a problem for justice as an overzealous one who pursues conviction at any cost.

Ethical obligations and professional conduct 🔗

Prosecutors in India are bound by the ethical standards applicable to all advocates under the Bar Council of India Rules, in addition to their statutory obligations. These rules require honesty, fairness, and conduct that upholds the dignity of the court. A public prosecutor cannot appear on behalf of the accused in any matter – it is inconsistent with the ethics of the legal profession and fair play in the administration of justice for a prosecutor to do so.

Beyond formal rules, the ethical character of prosecution work matters deeply for public trust. When prosecutors use their power to pursue convictions they know are unsupported, or when they suppress evidence to protect a weak case, they do not just harm the accused – they erode confidence in the entire justice system. The prosecutor’s commitment to justice over conviction is, ultimately, what gives the criminal justice process its legitimacy.

Balancing public interest with individual rights 🔗

Every prosecution involves a tension: the public interest in punishing wrongdoing and deterring crime on one side, and the rights of the individual accused on the other. The State, as custodian of the social interests of the community at large, has a responsibility to bring those who act against the community to account. But this must never come at the cost of convicting an innocent person.

This balance is not easy to maintain, and Indian courts have consistently held prosecutors to a high standard in striking it. The prosecutor must have the courage to present uncomfortable evidence, to call witnesses whose testimony may not help the case, and to acknowledge when the evidence simply does not justify pursuing a charge. That is what it means to uphold the rule of law.

What do you think? If a prosecutor discovers during trial that a key piece of evidence actually supports the accused’s innocence, should they be legally required to disclose it immediately – even if there is no explicit law mandating it? And given the Best Bakery Case and similar failures, do you think India needs a codified disclosure law like the Brady Rule to prevent wrongful convictions?

References

1. https://blog.ipleaders.in/meaning-roles-functions-public-prosecutor/
2. https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/to-the-point/bharatiya-nyaya-sanhita-&-indian-penal-code/public-prosecutor
3. https://prosecution.kerala.gov.in/index.php/ab/duties-responsibilities
4. http://www.dppodisha.nic.in/?q=node/18
5. https://www.dpceonline.it/index.php/dpceonline/article/download/2088/2221/3287
6. https://www.ijlsi.com/wp-content/uploads/Right-to-Fair-Defense-Concept-of-Disclosure-of-Criminal-Evidence-in-India.pdf
7. https://www.dakshindia.org/Daksh_Justice_in_India/29_chapter_02.xhtml
8. 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
9. https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2020/06/iyer-khandelwal-fair-disclosure-wrongful-prosecution/
10. https://lawjurist.com/index.php/2025/05/07/requirement-of-a-brady-approach-in-solving-indian-criminal-cases/
11. https://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1606/Duty-of-The-Public-Prosecutor-In-The-Criminal-Justice-System.html