It had then directed the Director of Prosecution to examine the manner in which the trial was conducted. The Director subsequently found a lapse on the part of the public prosecutor and recommended his removal to the State on July 7, 2025.
The High Court noted that the State had not acted on the recommendation. It criticised the government for allowing the matter to remain pending.
“By keeping the file pending, the government is in fact enabling this unfit person to continue in the post and continue to cause injustice to other victims as well.” it said.
The High Court also questioned why the matter had been referred to the government when the district collector was the appointing authority for the law officer.
“Presumably, the same has been done either to help the law officer concerned or to keep the matter under cold storage.” it said.
It then made wider observations about the appointment of government pleaders, public prosecutors and law officers, saying such appointments should be based on merit and professional competence.
“It is deeply disturbing to note that the State appears to be appointing government pleaders / public prosecutors / law officers not on merit, but on the basis of their proximity and allegiance to the ruling dispensation.” it said.
It also criticised the practice of appointing persons without adequate professional qualifications.
“Such appointments, at times, extend even to individuals whose only apparent qualification is their involvement in menial political activities, such as affixing posters during elections,” it added.
The High Court also referred to an earlier decision in which it had directed the State to frame guidelines for selecting government law officers.