The Immediate Trigger: Court’s Critique of Prosecutor Swaps

Gujarat High Court Rebukes State Over Repeated Prosecutor Changes in Babu Nisar Case

The Gujarat High Court on Friday chastised the state government for repeatedly replacing the Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) in the custodial‑death trial of Telangana migrant worker Shaikh Babu Nisar. Justice M K Thakker warned that each change stalls the proceedings, undermining the Supreme Court’s directive for a swift conclusion.

The bench examined the state’s justification for removing advocate S I Ghariya, who has been handling the prosecution since his re‑appointment in 2024. Ghariya has already examined 51 of the 63 witnesses, and the trial record spans nearly 3,500 pages.

• ▸The case involves 63 witnesses in total, with 25 material witnesses still pending.
• ▸Ghariya’s tenure saw the examination of 51 witnesses, the highest count among all SPPs so far.
• ▸The trial record comprises almost 3,500 pages of evidence and affidavits.

Justice Thakker questioned the state’s claim that earlier prosecutors “failed to conduct the trial at the desired pace,” noting that the current SPP is already progressing faster than his predecessors. The court deferred the matter to Tuesday, urging the government to retain Ghariya or set a strict timetable for the remaining evidence.

Legal Framework Governing Special Public Prosecutors

The appointment of an SPP derives from Criminal Procedure Code § 357, which empowers the state to assign a lawyer for “special cases” that demand focused expertise. The role is to ensure that the prosecution is conducted with independence and competence, a principle reinforced by Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to a speedy trial. Moreover, the Right to Information Act 2005 enables civil society and the victim’s family to seek copies of court orders and prosecutorial appointments, fostering transparency.

• ▸Criminal Procedure Code § 357 authorises the state to appoint a Special Public Prosecutor for complex cases.
• ▸Article 21 obliges the judiciary to uphold the right to a speedy and fair trial.
• ▸The Right to Information Act 2005 allows public access to details of prosecutorial appointments and related court orders.
• ▸Judicial Review permits higher courts to scrutinise executive actions that impede the administration of justice.

These provisions collectively create a legal scaffold that obliges the state to avoid arbitrary changes that could prejudice the accused’s right to a timely resolution.

Impact of Frequent Changes on Trial Efficiency

Each replacement forces the incoming SPP to familiarise himself with the voluminous record, effectively resetting the prosecutorial momentum. The Gujarat High Court observed that a new prosecutor would need to “take a lot of time in understanding the evidence,” a delay that directly contravenes the constitutional guarantee of speedy justice. The cost of such delays is not merely procedural; it erodes public confidence and imposes additional burdens on the judiciary, which already grapples with high pendency rates across district courts.

• ▸A new SPP must review the entire 3,500‑page record before resuming advocacy.
• ▸The trial has already progressed to the examination of 51 witnesses, leaving only 25 material witnesses.
• ▸Re‑appointments have historically extended case timelines by several months in comparable Gujarat cases.

These facts illustrate how administrative churn can transform a case slated for closure into a protracted legal saga, undermining the rule of law.

Accountability and the Role of Public Oversight

Beyond the courtroom, the victim’s family exercised its right under Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) to demand an expeditious trial, reflecting the broader societal expectation that the state safeguard life and liberty. The RTI route can be employed to obtain the state’s internal memos justifying each SPP change, thereby enabling civil‑society watchdogs to hold the executive accountable. Should the state persist in its pattern of replacements, the High Court retains the authority to impose sanctions or direct a fixed timetable, reinforcing the principle that administrative discretion must not thwart constitutional rights.

• ▸The family invoked DPSP‑derived expectations of speedy justice for the deceased migrant worker.
• ▸RTI applications can compel disclosure of the state’s rationale behind each prosecutorial change.
• ▸The High Court can issue binding timelines to prevent further dilatory tactics.

By anchoring accountability in constitutional and statutory mechanisms, the judiciary seeks to ensure that the pursuit of justice is not compromised by political or bureaucratic expediency.