The paper, titled ‘The Quest for Prosecutorial Independence,’ claims that Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which allows public prosecutors to withdraw a case, is frequently abused by politicians to further their own agendas.
“In recent years, the executive branch in many states has taken advantage of this option to win political support and supporters during elections. In numerous cases, political parties have made electoral pledges to drop charges against political allies in order to garner support and votes “According to the report,
The year-wise distribution of the withdrawal of prosecution in States where this provision (Section 321 CrPC) was used to withdraw a significant number of cases points to an increased withdrawal of cases during election years, particularly when elections result in a change in the political party in power, according to the report.
In this regard, the report cited how political parties such as the Aam Aadmi Party in the 2013 Delhi elections, the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha in the 2019 Jharkhand elections, the Indian National Congress in the 2019 Madhya Pradesh elections and 2019 Odisha elections, and the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam in the 2020 Tamil Nadu elections made it their election promises.
During election years, cases are more likely to be withdrawn, especially if the political party in power changes.
Report by Vidhi
Cases are being withdrawn.
Cases are being withdrawn.
The paper also looked into how the office of public prosecution operates, as well as the institutional and structural causes that are now limiting prosecutorial independence in India.
Chitrakshi Jain, Aditya Ranjan, and Jigar Parmar authored the report. It was filed as part of a study project for the Vidhi Centre’s efforts to advocate for judicial changes.
The 55-page report also delves into the main themes of how the law and structure surrounding prosecutorial offices have evolved in the country, the scheme set out in the CrPC for their appointment and general operation, and the discretion prosecutors have at various stages of trial and investigation.
“The study is created with the understanding that a well-functioning, due process-based criminal justice system necessitates the existence of an independent prosecutor’s office. The research questions examine the impact of state policies on the independence of the Indian prosecutor’s office “According to a piece of the report’s introduction section.
The research emphasised how the institutional structures in which prosecutors work have a considerable impact on how they carry out their duties.
The independence of the prosecution from the State executive is critical for its efficient functioning, according to the research, and laws and procedures governing their appointments and operations must be amended.
The report urged states to advocate for prosecutorial reforms and emphasised the following for general prosecutorial independence:
establishing reasonable standards and a comprehensive process for public prosecutor nominations;
Providing guidance to the executive branch in the appointment of special public prosecutors;
Increasing the prosecutor’s role in the pre-trial period;
removing executive intervention in case withdrawal;
Putting in place a solid system to ensure prosecution accountability
