5 days ago
‘How far prosecutors can work under uncertainty': HC seeks rethink on SPP's 'unceremonious' removal
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday raised concerns over 'unceremonious' removals of public prosecutors from the cases and questioned how far they can function 'under the hanging sword of uncertainty.'
The court also questioned how the prosecutors can 'venture to act independently' and 'show courage' in future due to such a situation.
In doing so, the court asked the state government to reconsider the removal of erstwhile Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Pradip Gharat from the trial related to suicide of Dr Payal Tadvi in 2019, allegedly due to harassment by her seniors.
A division bench of Justices Ravindra V Ghuge and Gautam Ankhad was hearing a plea by Payel's mother Abeda Tadvi, who challenged the March 7, 2025, notification issued by state law and judiciary department that removed Gharat as SPP and appointed Mahesh Mule as special public prosecutor.
Payal's three seniors at TN Topiwala National Medical College and BYL Nair Hospital are named as accused in the case. Gharat as SPP filed an application before the sessions court to add the then head of department (HOD) of gynaecology at the Hospital Dr Yi Ching Ling as accused for overlooking Tadvi's harassment and ragging complaint, which the trial court allowed on February 28.
On Wednesday, Chief Public Prosecutor Hiten Venegaonkar, representing the state government, submitted that it was empowered to take such a decision under the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). Gharat's removal was due to 'miscommunication and some loss of faith between the client and the lawyer' and the decision was taken 'without any prejudice,' he added.
'Have you (state) ever thought of prejudice to the lawyer with 40 years experience? Your affidavit (giving justification for removal) is so distasteful and disrespectful for him…Did you issue a letter to him? Though you may have power of removal, it should be exercised judiciously…. The Public Prosecutor is not a clerk that he should update progress to (state) are a client, you should go to him….do not reduce them to the value of peon or clerk,' Justice Ghuge orally remarked.
After Venegaonkar sought to file a short reply stating that the state did not have any doubt about Gharat's credibility, Justice Ghuge responded, 'Let him continue (as SPP). That is the only reward he will get that the faith is reposed in him….this (reply) would be lip service…'
Venegaonkar claimed that Gharat had exercised his own powers as SPP under CrPC to file application to add accused, to which the judges said that too might have been based on some consultation with the government
On court's query, Additional Public Prosecutor S V Gavand said that as per Gharat, he would continue as SPP if permission was granted by the court and can also address HC if required.
'Look at his magnanimity and element of devotion. Despite the insulting affidavit, he says alright, if I am given this task, I will still do it… The lawyer should be appreciated and should not be victimised…Many prosecutors like him have been removed is the time the HC shows what are the consequences. What happens if tomorrow prosecutors decide that we will not appear for government because you don't treat us well? The SPP decided to add the accused out of his own wisdom and his client does not know?' the bench questioned.
The court further said the 'most important angle' and a question before it was 'how far can prosecutors work under a hanging sword of uncertainty' and 'who will venture to act independently' and 'show courage' in future and instead become 'supine'.
The HC also remarked there was a 'close proximity' between the dates of order passed to add accused and removal of SPP.
'It appears someone did not like the HOD being added as accused. You (state) may deny it, but this is the inference,' it said and granted time to reconsider the decision till the next hearing on August 26.
