2004 (4) TMI 588 - SC - Indian Laws

Interpretation of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the relevant provisions of Legal Remembrancer s Manual relating to appointment and renewal of term of the District Government Counsel Whether the High Court was right in its direction in the light of Special Reference No.1 of 1998 that a collegium should be constituted?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and relevant provisions of the Legal Remembrancer's Manual.
2. Judicial review of the State's decision not to renew the term of District Government Counsel (DGC).
3. Correctness of the High Court's judgment directing the renewal of the respondent's term as DGC.
4. Constitution of a collegium for the appointment of DGCs.
5. Nature and extent of consultation required between the District Magistrate and the District Judge for the appointment of DGCs.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Interpretation of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Relevant Provisions of the Legal Remembrancer's Manual:
The Supreme Court examined the interpretation of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which governs the appointment of Public Prosecutors. The State of Uttar Pradesh amended Section 24, removing the requirement to consult the High Court for appointments. The Legal Remembrancer's Manual, which provides guidelines for the appointment and renewal of District Government Counsel (DGC), was also scrutinized. The Court noted that the Manual is a compilation of executive orders and not a 'law' within the meaning of Article 13 of the Constitution of India.

2. Judicial Review of the State's Decision Not to Renew the Term of DGC:
The Court emphasized that judicial review is concerned with the decision-making process rather than the decision's merit. It held that while the appointment of public prosecutors is a professional engagement and not a civil post, the State must follow a fair and reasonable procedure. The Court reiterated that the power of judicial review is limited to ensuring that the decision-making process is not arbitrary or unreasonable, adhering to the doctrine of 'Wednesbury Unreasonableness.'

3. Correctness of the High Court's Judgment Directing the Renewal of the Respondent's Term as DGC:
The High Court directed the renewal of the respondent's term based on the assumption that the District Judge and the District Magistrate had recommended the renewal. However, the Supreme Court found that this premise was incorrect. The District Judge and the District Magistrate had expressed concerns about the respondent's administrative skills and control over his team. Therefore, the High Court's judgment was set aside as it was based on an erroneous understanding of the facts.

4. Constitution of a Collegium for the Appointment of DGCs:
The High Court had directed the constitution of a collegium for the appointment of DGCs, drawing an analogy with the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts. The Supreme Court held that this analogy was misplaced. The appointment of DGCs is a professional engagement and does not warrant the same level of consultation as judicial appointments. The Court emphasized that while consultation with the District Judge should be effective, it should not be equated with the collegium system used for judicial appointments.

5. Nature and Extent of Consultation Required Between the District Magistrate and the District Judge for the Appointment of DGCs:
The Supreme Court stressed the importance of effective consultation between the District Magistrate and the District Judge. The District Judge should take into confidence his colleagues to ensure that only meritorious and competent persons are recommended. The Court criticized the amendment by the State of Uttar Pradesh that removed the requirement for consultation with the High Court, suggesting that such consultation ensures fairness and reduces the likelihood of arbitrary or politically motivated appointments.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, emphasizing that the decision not to renew the respondent's term was based on valid administrative concerns. The Court highlighted the importance of following a fair and reasonable procedure in the appointment and renewal of DGCs, ensuring effective consultation between the District Magistrate and the District Judge. The appeal was allowed, but no costs were awarded.