Kerala High Court Endorses Public Prosecutor Appointment Guidelines with Key Change
The Kerala High Court has approved the state’s draft guidelines for appointing District Government Pleaders, Public Prosecutors, and Additional Public Prosecutors, introducing a critical modification to the process. This decision came during the hearing of the cases Adv Sudheer PS v State of Kerala & ors and a connected matter.
A division bench, comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar VM, emphasized the necessity of prioritizing the District Judge’s opinion in the appointment process. The court directed the state to amend Clause 3 of the draft circular by replacing the term ‘due regard’ with ‘due primacy’, thereby ensuring that the District Judge’s perspective is given significant weight.
In its judgment, the court stated, “After giving anxious consideration to the aforesaid submissions, we feel that the only modification called for is in Clause (3) of the said draft circular where, instead of the expression ‘due regard’, the expression ‘due primacy’ shall be used.”
The inclusion of the District Police Chief in the selection process was contested by a petitioner. However, the court upheld the inclusion, reasoning that the input from the District Police Chief could provide valuable insights into candidates’ backgrounds. The court clarified that while the police chief’s role is to offer background information, this input is not decisive in the selection process. “The opinion of the District Police Chief is not conclusive, but is intended merely to assist the committee to find out the antecedent of the candidate, which, having regard to the importance of the office, should be free from any doubt,” the court explained.
The court’s directive was issued in response to two Public Interest Litigations (PILs) filed by advocate Sudheer PS and Vishnuprasad Nair. These PILs challenged the procedures for appointing public prosecutors in Kerala. Previously, on April 9, 2025, the court had instructed the government to develop internal guidelines per Section 18 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the statutory procedure for such appointments.
Following this directive, the government released a circular in December 2025 outlining the guidelines for forming selection panels. Subsequently, Nair filed another PIL, arguing that the guidelines did not adequately prioritize the District Judge’s opinion and improperly included the District Police Chief in the consultative process.
An amicus curiae also supported the concern that Clause 3 of the draft did not sufficiently prioritize the District Judge’s opinion. As a result, the court mandated a revision of the draft guidelines to give the District Judge’s opinion more prominence.
After ordering this modification, the court closed the PILs. “The draft Circular with the modification suggested above is approved,” declared the court.
More Read
The petitioners were represented by advocates SK Adhithyan, Shahina Noushad, Krishna S Karunakaran, and Anu Chandrakumar. Advocate General K Jaju Babu represented the High Court administration, while senior counsel P Deepak served as the amicus curiae.
