This motion debates whether a state government is constitutionally bound to give primacy to the District Judge's recommendation under Section 24 CrPC while appointing Public Prosecutors, or whether executive discretion prevails.
Aaj ka motion yeh hai: 'Kya District Judge ki raay ko State ke Public Prosecutor ki niyukti mein sarvopari maana jaana chahiye?' Yeh ek important constitutional aur administrative law ka sawaal hai — ek taraf judicial independence ki awaaz hai, doosri taraf executive prerogative ka haq. Counsel Aarav, please aap apna case rakhein.
My lord, Public Prosecutor ka padh koi aam niyukti nahi hai — yeh criminal justice ka woh dhura hai jis par poori prosecution machinary tikti hai. District Judge, jo rozana apni court mein advocates ka kaam, unka professional conduct, aur unki competence apni aankho se dekhta hai, woh sabse behtar sthiti mein hota hai yeh raay dene ke liye ki kaun is zimmedari ke layak hai. Isliye agar State ki niyukti mein District Judge ki raay ko praadhanya mile, to merit aur practicality — dono ka taqazon poora hota hai.
My lord, Aarav sahab ne bahut khoobsurati se District Judge ki 'expertise' ka argument rakha — lekin yeh bhool gaye ki public prosecutor ki niyukti ek executive function hai, aur us function mein judicial officer ki राय ko 'primacy' dena separation of powers ke mool dhanche ko hi hilaa deta hai. Agar District Judge ki opinion binding ya paramount ban jaati hai, toh State ki executive discretion — jo constitution ka ek fundamental pillar hai — sirf ek formality ban kar reh jaayegi.
My lord, vipaksh ka yeh kehna ki District Judge ki opinion se executive autonomy khatam hoti hai — yeh ek theoretical bhay hai, haqeeqat nahi. Public Prosecutor ki niyukti mein judicial input ka uddeshya sirf yeh hai ki ek yogya aur nishpaksh aadmi ko zimmedari mile, na ki kisi bhi political consideration se prabhavit hoke. Isliye District Judge ki primacy ek check hai, na ek takeover.
My lord, Aarav saab ne District Judge ki 'expertise' ko bahut bada kar ke pesh kiya — lekin hum yahan primacy ki baat kar rahe hain, na ki consultation ki. Agar District Judge ka opinion binding ya paramount ho jaye, to executive ki constitutional zimmedari — Public Prosecutors choose karne ki — ek judicial officer ke haath mein shift ho jaati hai, jo separation of powers ke liye theek nahi. Isliye vipaksh ka kehna hai: District Judge ki ray li jaaye, suni jaaye — lekin State ki discretion usse override nahi honi chahiye.
Ek taraf ka kehna hai ki District Judge ki raay ko primacy milni chahiye — kyunki woh ground-level judicial functioning ko sabse behtar samajhte hain. Doosri taraf ka tark hai ki appointment ka final authority State ke paas rehna chahiye, taaki executive accountability bani rahe aur separation of powers ka balance na tute. Nyaya ki taraf se ek balanced legal SUGGESTION yeh hai: State ko District Judge ki raay ko mandatory consideration dena chahiye — binding nahi, lekin recorded aur reasoned response ke saath — taaki judicial independence aur executive accountability dono ka samman ho. Aap citizens is motion ko rate karein aur apni raay neeche share karein!
Ab hum Q&A session shuru karte hain — invited advocates apne sawaal rakh sakte hain, aur main faisla karunga ki kaun sa counsel jawaab de.
Koi aur advocate apna sawaal rakhna chahe to abhi apna haath uthaayein — warna hum is charcha ko yahin samet lenge.
Koi aur advocate apna sawaal rakhna chahe to abhi apna haath uthaayein — warna hum is charcha ko yahin samet lenge.
Filhaal koi aur sawaal nahi — sabhi advocates aur shrotaaon ka dhanyavaad. Yeh charcha yahin samapt hoti hai. Yaad rahe, yeh sirf public legal awareness hai — kisi bhi mamle mein licensed advocate se salah zaroor lein.