Case at a glance: The Madras High Court has dismissed a complainant's plea seeking Bar Council action against a former Additional Public Prosecutor over how he conducted a murder trial. The Division Bench held that the prosecutor's decisions are his own, that any adverse remark on his conduct must come through a judicial order, and that the allegations did not amount to professional misconduct. It also reiterated that bar resolutions refusing to represent accused persons are null and void.
The petitioner, a lawyer, is the de facto complainant in a 2021 crime pending before the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli. The case had been transferred there by the Supreme Court after a Bar Association resolved that its members would not appear for the accused.
He alleged that the former Additional Public Prosecutor failed to seek cancellation of bail, did not seriously oppose the return of an RC book, and that some records were missing. He sought a mandamus directing the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry and the Bar Association to act on his representation.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can a complainant compel the Bar Council to take disciplinary action against a public prosecutor for the way he conducted the prosecution?
Prosecutorial Independence and Professional Misconduct
Citing A.S. Mohammed Rafi v. State of Tamil Nadu, the Court reiterated that resolutions refusing to defend accused persons are “null and void”, and said its remark to the Bar Association was “not a judicial directive but an appeal to the conscience.” The Bar Council can act only where there is prima facie material of professional misconduct.
On the prosecutor's role, the Court said the decision is the prosecutor's—“The call is his and his alone”—and that he “is not concerned with the private dispute between the complainant and the accused.” Any adverse remark on his conduct must come through a judicial order. The allegations did not fall within professional misconduct attracting disciplinary jurisdiction.
What the Court Actually Held
- The writ petition was dismissed with no costs.
- Bar resolutions refusing to represent accused persons are null and void.
- The Bar Council acts only on prima facie material of professional misconduct.
- Complaints about prosecutorial decisions must be addressed through judicial orders, not disciplinary complaints.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It protects the independence of public prosecutors.
- It limits the use of Bar Council complaints by aggrieved complainants.
- It restates Rafi on boycott resolutions.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Complainants
- Seek remedies through the trial court or revision rather than Bar Council complaints against prosecutors.
- Apply for cancellation of bail yourself where the law allows.
For Prosecutors
- Exercise independent judgment; the State's interest is not the complainant's private interest.
Key Takeaways
- The prosecutor's call is his own.
- Adverse remarks must come through judicial orders.
- No professional misconduct was shown.
- Boycott resolutions are void.
Frequently Asked Questions
No. The Court said the prosecutor's decisions are his and his alone.
Only where there is prima facie material of professional misconduct.
The order text shows a Division Bench of Justices G.R. Swaminathan and M.D. Sumathi.
Conclusion
The ruling draws a firm line between prosecutorial discretion and professional misconduct.
Practical takeaway: Dissatisfaction with a prosecutor's trial strategy is a matter for the court, not for disciplinary proceedings.