Karnataka High Court Invalidates State’s Decision on Special Prosecutors Under POCSO Act

Last Updated on January 28, 2024 by News Desk

In a recent development, the Karnataka High Court has nullified the State government’s move to designate regular Public Prosecutors (PPs) as Special Public Prosecutors (SPPs) for courts under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) [Raghavendra YT & Others v. State of Karnataka].

Justice N Sanjay Gowda, presiding over the case, has mandated the State government to appoint Special Public Prosecutors exclusively under the POCSO Act within the next three months. During this period, lawyers appointed earlier on a contract basis as SPPs will resume their duties.

The court’s decision came in response to a series of petitions filed by advocates who had been previously appointed as SPPs on a contract basis to handle cases in POCSO courts. These legal professionals contested a November 2022 notification that assigned regular Public Prosecutors to Special Courts, arguing that such a move was unlawful and that the tenure of some petitioners as SPPs was still in effect.

While the State government defended its decision, asserting its authority under the POCSO Act, the court scrutinized Section 32 of the act, emphasizing that the government is obligated to appoint an SPP for every special court.

The court further highlighted a crucial distinction between the appointment process for an SPP under the POCSO Act and a Public Prosecutor under the Code of Criminal Procedure. It concluded that employees in the regular cadre of prosecuting officers could not be designated as SPPs under the POCSO Act and subsequently annulled the government’s decision.

However, the court also acknowledged procedural lapses in the appointment of the petitioners as SPPs and ruled against their continuation in the role. To address the potential vacuum in POCSO Courts resulting from the decision to quash the government’s appointment of regular PPs as SPPs, the court directed that those previously working as SPPs on a contract basis should continue in their roles temporarily.

This verdict underscores the court’s commitment to upholding the specific requirements outlined in the POCSO Act and ensures that the appointment process for Special Public Prosecutors aligns with the Supreme Court’s directives.

Written by — Athi Venkatesh AVD