Read Time: 09 minutes

The Andhra Pradesh High Court was recently tasked with addressing a contentious issue: Whether any person with a political background is automatically disqualified from being considered for the post of Director of Prosecution​?

A bench comprising Justices Ravinath Tilhari and Raghunandan Rao addressed the complex issue of eligibility criteria for the appointment of the Director of Prosecution. The court asserted that politics is not a crime, and participation in political activities before joining government service should not be a disqualifying factor.

Debunking the petitioner’s contention, the court noted, “a person cannot be denied employment with the State on the ground of his political beliefs or on the ground of his political affiliations, prior to joining in the service of the State. A person cannot be declared to be ineligible on the ground that he is a member of a political party.”

The heart of the controversy lies in the petitioner, B. Ramakoteswara Rao’s challenge against the appointment of Mr. Jalla Sudharashana Reddy as the Director of Prosecutions, Andhra Pradesh, alleging that the appointment was arbitrary, malafide and in violation of established legal and procedural norms.

Referring to multiple reports from the Law Commission that supported his viewpoint, the petitioner emphasised the establishment of an independent prosecuting agency, with the Director of Prosecution at its helm, as a result of amendments to Sections 24, 25, and 25-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).

The petitioner posited that the historical context and legislative intent behind these amendments underscored a clear directive: the prosecution service should remain distinct and independent from political influences. He further contended that “a politician cannot be permitted to occupy asensitive position like the Director of Prosecution,” citing concerns over institutional integrity and impartiality. It was also argued that a politically affiliated individual could potentially prioritise party interests over impartial justice, thus undermining the prosecution service's independence.

However, the Advocate General (AG), representing the opposing viewpoint, articulated that the cited Law Commission reports and Supreme Court judgments did not explicitly preclude individuals with political backgrounds from serving in non-investigative legal capacities, such as the prosecution service. 

The AG further contended that the core issue highlighted in these reports was the separation of the prosecution service from the investigating agency, namely the Police Department, rather than a segregation from political figures entirely.

Contesting the material put forth by the petitioner, he submitted that, “the lawCommission reports, relied upon by the petitioner do not in any manner indicate or state that the prosecution service has to be excluded from allpoliticians or persons having a political background should be excluded from the prosecution service and there has to be a separation of a prosecution service frompoliticians.”

The AG referred to the judgement in ‘State Of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ramashanker Raghuvanshi And Anr'., wherein the Supreme Court ruled that “Everyone is entitled to his thoughts and views. There are no barriers. Our Constitution guarantees that,” underscoring that denying employment based on past political affiliations, without evidence of involvement in illegal or subversive activities, contradicts the principles of equality of opportunity, freedom of expression, and association guaranteed by the Constitution. 

In deliberating on these arguments, the court clarified the Law Commission's intent, affirming that the separation was indeed aimed at distinguishing the prosecutorial body from the police to ensure unbiased legal proceedings. However, it noted there was no definitive guidance on prohibiting individuals with political backgrounds from assuming roles within the independent prosecution service.

The court also noted that Mr. Jalla Sudharashana Reddy had been elected as a Member of the Panchayat (MPP) but had resigned from this political position before assuming the post of Director of Prosecution, signifying a formal disassociation from active political roles, thereby addressing concerns regarding potential biases or conflicts of interest.

The High Court, aligning with the precedents, held that the petitioner's concerns regarding institutional integrity and the disqualification of individuals with political backgrounds from the position of Director of Prosecution were unfounded. It ruled that past political affiliations do not automatically render a candidate unsuitable for the role, emphasising the distinction between the eligibility of a candidate based on their background and the suitability of a candidate in terms of their ability to perform the job impartially.

In conclusion, while the court recognised the importance of an independent prosecution service, it determined that having a political background does not inherently disqualify a candidate from being considered for the position of Director of Prosecution. 

Cause Title: B. Ramakoteswara Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh [W.P.No.14445 of 2023]