Read Time: 06 minutes

A Madras High Court bench of Justices Kalyanasundaram and Hemalatha recently upheld the termination of a Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) of the Mahila Court in Tiruvallur on grounds of corruption and illegal gratification.

Court remarked, “The Government advocate being the representative of the Government has to act in an honest manner. If he/she goes around with the intention to make money at the cost of justice, only chaos will prevail.”

Court further noted, “There is a famous quote is "truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't going away...Every advocate is a court officer and part and parcel of the justice delivery system.”

The public reposes faith in the judiciary but the judges have to rely on ‘their pillars’ i.e. the advocates, Court highlighted.

The Tiruvallur Advocates Association had written a formal letter to the collector of Tiruvallur alleging that there was an eyewitness to the SPP of the Mahila Court taking illegal gratification from an accused and informing the complainant that he had a weak case, despite the complainant’s daughter being a victim of dowry harassment.

The collector, upon receiving the letter, held an enquiry and accorded the SPP with an opportunity to explain herself, however since he was not satisfied with her explanation, the collector recommended to the government that the SPP be terminated.

Thereafter, the SPP of the Mahila Court was terminated with immediate effect by the government on the basis of the enquiry and recommendation of the collector of Tiruvallur. However, contesting her termination, the SPP moved a writ petition before the High Court. 

Court, while upholding her termination, noted that in a POCSO case, the SPP deliberately failed to adduce any evidence for the age of the victim due to which the trial court had concluded that the sexual act was consensual and that the victim was not a minor.

Further taking note of the allegation that in cases under the POCSO Act, the SPP had tried to convince the victims and their parents, to compromise with the accused by receiving compensation, Court remarked, “this act of hers was in itself a crime against the society and her continuance in the post would result in gross miscarriage of justice for the victims of such serious offences.”

Therefore, noting that the records reflected that the SPP was demanding bribes from the accused and acted like an extra constitutional authority attempting to fix up compromises in serious cases of offence, Court dismissed SPP's petition.

Court held that the records of the SPP spoke for themselves as she had lost as many 150 cases due to her deliberate inaction and under the given circumstances her termination from the post of SPP did not violate her fundamental rights.

Case title: Dhanalakshmi Vs State of Tamil Nadu