Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan grant a fortnight’s time for the government to spell out the procedure. File.
| Photo Credit: K. Pichumani
The Madras High Court has granted two weeks’ time for Tamil Nadu government to spell out the procedure it intends to follow for making appointments to the posts of Director, Deputy Directors and Assistant Directors of Prosecution across the State.
First Division Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan accepted a request made by State Public Prosecutor R. John Sathyan to grant him a fortnight’s time to obtain necessary instructions from the State government.
The time was granted following a writ petition filed jointly by a group of five Additional and Assistant Public Prosecutors including Iden Isan, M. Santhiya, S. Sasireka, J.R. Hercules and M. Barath Rathna who had been appointed through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC).
The petitioners had urged the court to declare Section 20 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) as ultra vires the Constitution since it permits appointment of lawyers, who had not served as public prosecutors in trial courts, as Director, Deputy Director or Assistant Director of Prosecution.
The litigants insisted that only the prosecutors, who had been appointed through TNPSC recruitment process, must be promoted to the top posts in the directorate of prosecution and that the Director and Deputy Directors should not be appointed without the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court.
Further, the petitioners had sought a direction to the the State government to frame statutory rules governing the appointments in the directorate of prosecution and not to make any appointment to the top posts in the interregnum from among candidates outside the regular cadre of prosecuting officers.
Though Mr. Isan had also filed another petition urging the High Court to issue a writ of quo warranto mandating G. Krisharaja to explain under what authority he was holding the post of Director of Prosecution, the Division Bench closed the case after being informed that the incumbent government had terminated his service.
The petitioner’s counsel Suhrith Parthasarathy told the court the second writ petition had become infructuous and nothing survived in it for adjudication pursuant to the termination order issued by the government recently. The judges recorded his submission and closed the case.
Published – June 10, 2026 06:35 am IST
