The Supreme Court on August 24, 2026, issued notice on a plea filed by a Tamil Nadu Law Officer challenging adverse remarks made by the Madras High Court over his conduct during a criminal trial.
A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta clarified that the notice would be confined to the observations made against the petitioner.
Background of the Case
The matter arose from a criminal case involving a person convicted under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. While hearing a plea seeking suspension of the sentence, the Madras High Court examined the manner in which the prosecution had presented the case.
The High Court found that an Accident Register concerning the victim had not been marked before the trial court. The document recorded four injuries suffered by the victim. The court also noted that the doctor who examined her was not questioned about the document.
The High Court observed that the relevant wound certificate was available in the case diary and had also been placed before the High Court during an earlier proceeding.
Before the Supreme Court, counsel for the Law Officer argued that the adverse remarks had been made without giving him notice.
Justice Sandeep Mehta, however, questioned the explanation, particularly in view of the failure to place the medical document before the trial court.
“You exhibited the highest level of incompetence. You don't deserve to be a public prosecutor. Such a vital document you withheld. Technically you may be right that no notice was given but you don't deserve any notice. As a matter of fact, you don't deserve to be a public prosecutor.”
The Court nevertheless issued notice, specifically limiting it to the observations made by the High Court against the petitioner.
The High Court had earlier directed the Director of Prosecution to examine the conduct of the trial. A subsequent report reportedly acknowledged lapses in the prosecution and recommended removal of the Law Officer on July 7, 2025.
The High Court noted that the Government had not acted on the recommendation and subsequently impleaded the Theni District Collector and the Secretary, Home Department, directing them to take a decision within four weeks.
The Law Officer then approached the Supreme Court challenging the adverse observations.
The Supreme Court, on August 24, 2026, issued notice to the State in the petition and confined the scope of the notice to the remarks made against the petitioner by the Madras High Court.
-300x169.webp)