Petitioner A Kannan, an advocate, also sought to declare as null and void Section 24 of Criminal Procedure Code and subsequent state amendments which gave unfettered executive discretion in the matter of appointment of public prosecutors, government pleaders and government advocates without assessing their ability, knowledge and experience to handle cases.
The petitioner alleged that the "so-called" consultation with the high court regarding appointments of PPs etc had become meaningless as the court was not actively participating in the process and approved the list sent by the government.
A bench ofJustice V.Ramasubramanian and Justice N Kirubakaran, who heard the PIL, suggested to the petitioner to amend the prayer in such a way that the government should make consultation of higher judiciary more meaningful and file a fresh petition.
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
