The Supreme Court has issued notice to the Jharkhand Government on a plea challenging the high court’s dismissal of a Public Interest Litigation that sought public prosecutors’ offices and better facilities for victims and witnesses on court premises across the state.
On August 4, a Bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and K.V. Viswanathan was hearing a Special Leave Petition filed against a May order of the Jharkhand High Court, which had refused to issue directions for such infrastructure. In its order, the HC held that it was for the government to decide, pointing out that vulnerable witness deposition centres had already been set up.
The rejected petition was filed by Ranchi-based advocate Baleshwar Yadav, who relied on government memos dating back to 2013 and 2017 mandating prosecution offices, shadow G.R. offices, and waiting halls in every civil court campus. The petition contended that in most districts, prosecution offices run from temporary or dilapidated structures, forcing victims and witnesses to wait in unsafe conditions and hampering fair trial proceedings.
In 2017 a directive from the then Chief Secretary (CS), Rajbala Verma, instructed all deputy commissioners to provide space in court campuses for prosecution offices. That order specifically required: rooms with necessary facilities for public prosecutors, additional prosecutors, and assistant prosecutors, halls with toilets for male and female victims/witnesses; a help desk adjacent to the halls to function as a reception for witnesses.
The case was represented in the Supreme Court by Adv. Rakesh Kumar (AOR) and Adv. Ujjwal K. Priyadarshi. Speaking to The Indian Express, Ujjwal K. Priyadarshi, an advocate at the Supreme Court, said the issue was not just about convenience but about the “basic infrastructure of the criminal justice system”.
“Across Jharkhand, most district courts do not have separate prosecution offices. There is no proper space to keep files, no place for prosecutors to interact with victims and witnesses, and no computer or internet facility to prepare replies in bail matters or other urgent proceedings. Despite government memos in 2013 and a specific 2017 order from the Chief Secretary directing all Deputy Commissioners to provide such infrastructure or DPR for such infrastructure within 30 days, nothing was implemented,” he said.
Priyadarshi added that the high court “erred in dismissing a PIL without even asking the state for a status report”.
Story continues below this ad
“When the government itself had issued clear directions, the high court could not have rejected the petition without reasoning. A writ of mandamus was clearly maintainable in this case because it was a question of basic infrastructure. The Supreme Court has rightly found the issue important, issued notice, and said the state must come and explain,” he said.
The Supreme Court has now sought a response from the Jharkhand government.
