Representational Image.
Contractual Prosecutors Cannot Claim Regularisation, says Supreme Court: New Delhi, India – July 5, 2025 – The Supreme Court of India has firmly ruled that public prosecutors appointed on a contractual basis cannot claim regularisation of their services. A bench comprising Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Joymalya Bagchi upheld a decision by the Calcutta High Court, which had rejected a writ application seeking directions for regularisation by a Public Prosecutor.
The apex court’s ruling came in response to a Special Leave Petition filed by a contractual Assistant Public Prosecutor, Anupam Chakraborty, who sought regularisation of his service. The Court found no error in the Calcutta High Court’s judgment, which had previously dismissed Chakraborty’s plea.
The Supreme Court noted that the petitioner himself had, on multiple occasions, requested the District Magistrate of Purulia to allow him to continue in his contractual role to earn a livelihood. This fact played a significant role in the Court’s decision.
In its observation, the bench stated, “The petitioner has not been able to establish any right either statutory or constitutional so as to deserve the relief of regularisation. The appointment of Additional Public Prosecutors is a structured procedure as provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the relevant Rules prevalent in the particular State. Thus, a claim for regularisation of a person working on the said post on contractual basis cannot be entertained as such relief would be contrary to law.”
Accordingly, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed for lacking merit.
READ: Advocate Shwetasree Majumdar Withdraws Consent for Judgeship Amidst Centre’s Inaction
Legal Framework for Public Prosecutor Appointments
The appointment of Public Prosecutors and Additional Public Prosecutors is governed by specific legal provisions. Earlier, Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) laid down the procedure, which has now been superseded by Section 18 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). Both provisions mandate that such appointments must be made by the State Government in consultation with the District Magistrate and the Sessions Judge. Crucially, only advocates with at least seven years of practice are eligible for these roles. Furthermore, if a regular cadre of prosecuting officers exists, appointments are to be made exclusively from within that cadre, unless the State Government determines no suitable person is available.
READ: Veritas Legal Advises Raphe mPhibr on $100 Million Fundraise, Bolstering India’s Defense Tech Sector
Brief Facts of the Case
The petitioner, Anupam Chakraborty, was initially engaged by the District Magistrate, Purulia, on June 20, 2014. His role was to discharge functions as an Assistant Public Prosecutor for State cases in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, addressing a vacancy. He was compensated at a rate of ₹459 per appearance for a maximum of two cases per day.
Subsequently, the petitioner was also assigned to prosecute cases in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Raghunathpur. He later sought an enhancement of his fees and filed an Original Application before the State Administrative Tribunal, seeking regularisation of his service. The Tribunal initially ruled in his favor with an order dated December 16, 2022. However, this decision was overturned by the Principal Secretary, Judicial Department, Government of West Bengal, who rejected the petitioner’s claim on June 12, 2023.
READ: BCI Considers Action Against SILF Over ‘Misleading’ Foreign Law Firm Comments
Undaunted, the petitioner approached the Tribunal again, seeking to set aside the Principal Secretary’s order, regularise his service, ensure he is not removed from service as it is his sole income source, provide job security until retirement, and grant him equal pay.
Upon reconsideration, the Tribunal noted that the petitioner’s engagement was purely contractual and not through any regular appointment process. It also highlighted the petitioner’s own requests for continued contractual engagement due to livelihood concerns. Consequently, the Tribunal found his claim for regularisation or pay parity with regularly appointed Assistant Public Prosecutors to be legally unsustainable.
Before the Calcutta High Court, the petitioner argued that his current remuneration was inadequate and had not been revised in over eleven years, contending that he should at least be paid fees equivalent to panel lawyers. The State, in its submission, asserted that there was no legal provision under which the petitioner could claim such relief. The High Court concurred with the State’s arguments and upheld the Tribunal’s decision.
However, acknowledging the petitioner’s grievance regarding inadequate fees, the High Court granted him the liberty to approach the authorities for reconsideration of his fee, directing that such a request be duly considered.
The Supreme Court, in its final judgment in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 29533/2025 (Anupam Chakraborty v. State of West Bengal & Ors.), upheld the High Court’s comprehensive view, solidifying the legal stance on contractual appointments in the public prosecution service.
