Madras High Court news: The Madras High Court recently came down heavily over the appointments of law officers based on political proximity to the ruling dispensation in state governments, and said that such appointments extend even to persons whose only qualification is affixing posters during elections.

While hearing a plea of a man who was convicted in a attemp to rape case of a woman from an oppressed community, Justice B Pugalendhi refused to suspend the sentence.

The court took a strong exception to the state’s failure to act on recommendations to remove a negligent prosecutor, who failed to mark the survivor’s injury in the trial court as evidence.

“Such appointments, at times, extend even to individuals whose only apparent qualification is their involvement in menial political activities, such as affixing posters during elections. This case is one such glaring example of how the victims are defended by political appointees in a case of rape, and that too, of a woman from the oppressed community,” the court said on April 1.

The order added that it is deeply disturbing to note that the state appears to be appointing government pleaders/public prosecutors/law officers not on merit, but based on their proximity and allegiance to the ruling dispensation.

The petitioner was convicted by the special court for trial of cases under the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act in February 2025. The prosecution established that in November 2019, he attacked the survivor, punched her, and attempted to commit rape.

He was sentenced to five years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 376 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and months under the SC/ST Act. The petitioner sought a suspension of the sentence pending his plea.

Appearing for the petitioner, advocate S Ramanathan submitted that the allegation of attempt to rape is false and that the survivor has not suffered any injury, and therefore, the allegations are not probable.

He has also taken the ground that there is a personal dispute between the survivor’s son and the petitioner, and hence, the case has been foisted against the petitioner.

During the proceedings, the court highlighted a lapse in the trial; a crucial accident register documenting four injuries on the survivor was never marked as evidence.

The court noted that the special public prosecutor failed to question the medical expert regarding these injuries or take steps to include the document as additional evidence under Section 311 of the CrPC.

The court recalled that the petitioner had previously filed an application seeking suspension of his sentence in the case, and the same was dismissed by this court on April 23, 2025.

“Considering the manner in which the prosecution has conducted the case before the trial court, this court, while dismissing the earlier application, has also directed the director of prosecutions to take appropriate action against the concerned special public prosecutor, who conducted the trial in another case in 2020,” Justice Pugalendhi observed.

The order remarked that the director of prosecution has filed a report before this court admitting the manner in which the prosecution was conducted by the concerned public prosecutor in the 2020 case.

The court revealed that, although the director of prosecution recommended the removal of the negligent special public prosecutor on July 7, 2025, the state government has yet to act.

The court expressed “deep disturbance” over the state’s appointment of law officers based on “proximity and allegiance to the ruling dispensation” rather than professional competence.

This practice strikes at the very root of professional standards expected of Law Officers. A significant number of such appointees lack the requisite competence and legal acumen to effectively conduct cases.

The court remarked that the more troubling aspect is that even after they are appointed law officers, there is a lack of effort in developing the necessary skills to effectively defend cases, and the inevitable consequence is that litigants are left to suffer, and the administration of justice itself stands compromised.

“Considering the manner in which cases are defended by political appointments, the first bench of this court in V Vasanthakumar v The Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu has issued directions to the state government to formulate or frame definite guidelines for the manner and criteria for the selection of advocates to the post of government law officers,” the court stated.

The order stated that it also directed that appointment of law officers should not be made for pursuing a political purpose or for giving some undue advantage to any section, but based on merit and basic qualifications.

As a law officer at the district level is being appointed on a tenure basis by the District Collector, the court questioned, when the appointing authority is the District Collector, it is not known as to why the matter has been referred to the government.

The court remarked that presumably, the same has been done either to help the Law Officer concerned or to keep the matter under cold storage.

Consequently, the High Court suo motu impleaded the District Collector of Theni and the Secretary to the Government, Home Department. These officials have been directed to take a final decision on the removal of the concerned law officer within four weeks.