A Public Prosecutor works for the police or tries to help them win at any cost.

Courts have held that a Public Prosecutor represents the state's interest in justice being done fairly, not merely securing convictions, and must act independently of police or executive pressure.

Victims have no say in how the prosecution is conducted.

Under sub-section (8)'s proviso, a court may allow the victim to engage their own advocate to assist the Public Prosecutor, giving victims a limited but real voice in the trial.

Any government can pick anyone they like as Public Prosecutor.

Appointments require consultation with the High Court or Sessions Judge, must come from a vetted panel or an established cadre, and the person must meet a minimum years-of-practice requirement.

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

Section 18

Public Prosecutors

(1) For every High Court, the Central Government or the State Government shall, after consultation with the High Court, appoint a Public Prosecutor and may also appoint one or more Additional Public Prosecutors, for conducting in such Court, any prosecution, appeal or other proceeding on behalf of the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be: Provided that for National Capital Territory of Delhi, the Central Government shall, after consultation with the High Court of Delhi, appoint the Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutors for the purposes of this sub-section.§

(2) The Central Government may appoint one or more Public Prosecutors for the purpose of conducting any case in any district or local area.§

(3) For every district, the State Government shall appoint a Public Prosecutor and may also appoint one or more Additional Public Prosecutors for the district: Provided that the Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor appointed for one district may be appointed also to be a Public Prosecutor or an Additional Public Prosecutor, as the case may be, for another district.§

(4) The District Magistrate shall, in consultation with the Sessions Judge, prepare a panel of names of persons, who are, in his opinion fit to be appointed as Public Prosecutors or Additional Public Prosecutors for the district.§

(5) No person shall be appointed by the State Government as the Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor for the district unless his name appears in the panel of names prepared by the District Magistrate under sub-section (4).§

(6) Notwithstanding anything in sub-section (5), where in a State there exists a regular Cadre of Prosecuting Officers, the State Government shall appoint a Public Prosecutor or an Additional Public Prosecutor only from among the persons constituting such Cadre: Provided that where, in the opinion of the State Government, no suitable person is available in such Cadre for such appointment, that Government may appoint a person as Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor, as the case may be, from the panel of names prepared by the District Magistrate under sub-section (4). Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section,—§

(a) “regular Cadre of Prosecuting Officers” means a Cadre of Prosecuting Officers which includes therein the post of Public Prosecutor, by whatever name called, and which provides for promotion of Assistant Public Prosecutors, by whatever name called, to that post;§

(b) “Prosecuting Officer” means a person, by whatever name called, appointed to perform the functions of a Public Prosecutor, Special Public Prosecutor, Additional Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor under this Sanhita.§

(7) A person shall be eligible to be appointed as a Public Prosecutor or an Additional Public Prosecutor under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) or sub-section (6), only if he has been in practice as an advocate for not less than seven years.§

(8) The Central Government or the State Government may appoint, for the purposes of any case or class of cases, a person who has been in practice as an advocate for not less than ten years as a Special Public Prosecutor: Provided that the Court may permit the victim to engage an advocate of his choice to assist the prosecution under this sub-section.§

(9) For the purposes of sub-section (7) and sub-section (8), the period during which a person has been in practice as an advocate, or has rendered (whether before or after the commencement of this Sanhita) service as a Public Prosecutor or as an Additional Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor or other Prosecuting Officer, by whatever name called, shall be deemed to be the period during which such person has been in practice as an advocate.§

Why this exists

Public Prosecutors represent the state, not the police or the victim personally, in criminal trials — they are expected to seek justice fairly rather than simply secure convictions. This structure (carried over from Section 24 of the old Criminal Procedure Code) exists to keep prosecutorial appointments transparent and merit-based rather than purely political: consultation with High Courts and Sessions Judges, a District Magistrate's vetted panel, a minimum practice requirement, and preference for a professional prosecution cadre are all designed to insulate the role from arbitrary patronage. The provision for Special Public Prosecutors and victim-engaged counsel responds to high-profile or sensitive cases (communal riots, terrorism, custodial deaths) where victims felt regular prosecutors were not adequately representing their interests.

How courts read it

Courts have repeatedly stressed that a Public Prosecutor's role is quasi-judicial and independent of executive or police control — in Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P. (1991), the Supreme Court held that even wholesale removal of District Government Counsel must not be arbitrary and must satisfy Article 14's fairness standard. In the Best Bakery case (Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, 2004 and later rounds), the Supreme Court criticized prosecutors for not acting independently during Gujarat riot trials, reinforcing why a victim's advocate may be allowed to assist under the proviso equivalent to sub-section (8). Johri Mal v. State of U.P. (2004) further clarified that the government's power to appoint or withdraw prosecutors must be exercised objectively, not to favor the accused or bury a case.

Common misconceptions

Myth: A Public Prosecutor works for the police or tries to help them win at any cost.
Fact: Courts have held that a Public Prosecutor represents the state's interest in justice being done fairly, not merely securing convictions, and must act independently of police or executive pressure.
Myth: Victims have no say in how the prosecution is conducted.
Fact: Under sub-section (8)'s proviso, a court may allow the victim to engage their own advocate to assist the Public Prosecutor, giving victims a limited but real voice in the trial.
Myth: Any government can pick anyone they like as Public Prosecutor.
Fact: Appointments require consultation with the High Court or Sessions Judge, must come from a vetted panel or an established cadre, and the person must meet a minimum years-of-practice requirement.