The Supreme Court has sought a response from the Tamil Nadu government following the Madras High Court’s severe criticism of a public prosecutor who failed to present crucial evidence in a rape case. The bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, issued a notice in response to the prosecutor’s appeal against the High Court’s observations.
The controversy arose when the prosecutor neglected to submit an accident register to the trial court, despite its inclusion in the case diary, which documented the injuries sustained by the victim. The Supreme Court remarked on the prosecutor’s failure, stating, “He does not deserve to be a public prosecutor. Such a vital document you withheld. It was available in your case diary. May be technically you may be right that no notice was given but you don’t deserve any notice, as a matter of fact. You don’t deserve to be a public prosecutor.”
Criticism from the Madras High Court
The Madras High Court’s reproach came during its deliberation on a petition to suspend the sentence of a man convicted of attempting to rape a Scheduled Caste woman. The court noted that the victim was examined at a government hospital the same day as the alleged assault, with the doctor recording several injuries, including an abrasion on the lower lip and vaginal bleeding, in the accident register. However, this document was never submitted as evidence in the trial, nor was the doctor questioned about it.
Prosecutor’s Conduct Under Scrutiny
Following these revelations, the High Court ordered the Director of Prosecution to investigate the trial’s conduct. The Director discovered negligence on the prosecutor’s part and recommended his dismissal to the State on July 7, 2025. Despite this recommendation, the State had yet to act, prompting criticism from the High Court about the ongoing delay and its potential to perpetuate injustice.
“By keeping the file pending, the government is in fact enabling this unfit person to continue in the post and continue to cause injustice to other victims as well,” the High Court declared. It also questioned the referral of the matter to the government instead of the district collector, suggesting it might have been done to either assist the prosecutor or delay action.
More Read
Call for Merit-Based Appointments
The High Court expressed concerns about the appointment process for government pleaders and law officers, emphasizing that such positions should be filled based on merit and professional qualifications. “It is deeply disturbing to note that the State appears to be appointing government pleaders / public prosecutors / law officers not on merit, but on the basis of their proximity and allegiance to the ruling dispensation,” it stated. The court criticized the practice of appointing individuals lacking adequate professional qualifications, noting that some were appointed due to their involvement in political activities.
The High Court referenced a previous directive for the State to establish guidelines for selecting government law officers. In this case, it observed that the prosecutor either deliberately avoided presenting the accident register or lacked the necessary expertise for conducting a criminal trial.
Consequently, the High Court suo motu included the Theni district collector and the Home Department secretary in the proceedings, directing them to resolve the prosecutor’s recommendation within four weeks. The prosecutor has since appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court’s observations. The Supreme Court, on Monday, issued a notice to the State regarding the prosecutor’s appeal.
