STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. versus PRAKASH PRAHLAD PATIL & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 6 S.C.R. 392 · Decided: 16-04-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 6 S.C.R. 392 
.. 
-t 
A 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. 
v. 
PRAKASH PRAHLAD PATIL & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 748 of 2009) 
8 
APRIL 16, 2009 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR 
GANGULY, JJ.] 
).. . 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
c 
s.24(8) - Appointment of Special Public Prosecutor -
Challenged in a writ petition - High Court setting aside the 
appointment - Held: Appointment of a Public Prosecutor to 
conduct proceedings does not in any way cause prejudice to 
D accused - In that sense, writ petition before High Court was 
wholly misconsceived - Order of High Court set aside - Trial 
-"I 
~ 
court would complete the trial expeditiously - Rules for the 
Conduct of the Affairs of the Government, 1984 - r.22 -
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226. 
E 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Article 226 - Writ petition challenging appointment of 
Special Public Prosecutor - Writ petition purported· to be 
under public interest, but later petitioner turned out to be 
¥ • 
F relation of one of the accused - High Court allowing the 
petition - Held: The power of judicial review is not intended 
to assume a supervisory role - The power is not intended 
either to review governance under the rule of Jaw nor do the 
courts step into the areas exclusively reserved by the 
G supreme Jex to other organs of the State - Courts should not 
ordinarily interfere with a policy decision of the State - While 
). 
"-
exercising power of judicial review the court is more concerned 
with the decision making process than the merit of the 
decision itself - Administrative Law - Policy decision -
H 
392 
""' 
_..j 
.4' 
... 
·-'of 
... 
-1, 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. v. PRAKASH 
393 
PRAHLAD PATIL & ORS. 
Judicial Review. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 748 of 2009. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 04.07.2008 of the High 
Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Writ Petition No. 234 
of 2008. 
Sanjay Kharde and Asha Gopalan Nqir for the Appellants. 
Nikhil Goel, Sayid Marzook Bafaki, Sheela Goel, 
Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, Arundhati S. Sukhtankar and Naresh 
Kumar for the Respondents. 
The Order of the Court was delivered: 
ORDER 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division 
Bench of the Bombay High Court allowing the Writ Petition filed 
by present respondent No.1. In the Writ Petition before the High 
Court challenge was to the appointment of the present 
respondent No.3 as a Special Public Prosecutor for conducting 
Sessions Case No.41 of 2006 pending before the Sessions 
Court at lslampur in Sang Ii District. The basic grievance of 
respondent No.1 was that the appointment of respondent No.3 
as a Special Public Prosecutor was in violation of the scheme 
of Section 24(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in 
short "the Code") and Rule 22 of the Rules for the Conduct of 
the Legal Affairs of Government, 1984 (in short "The Rules"). It 
was also the stand of respondent No.1 that the view expressed 
by this Court in Mukul Dalal v. Union of India, 1988 (3) SCC 
144, was not kept in view while making the appointment. The 
appointment of respondent No.3 appears to have been made 
on the basis of a petition filed by the brother and the son of the 
victim. This was a case where two persons were killed. Several 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
394 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 6 S.C.R. 
A accused persons are facing trial. Though initially it was not 
disclosed by respondent No.1 that he is related to one of the 
accused, but later on that fact surfaced during the hearing of 
the matter before the High Court. Then respondent No.1 took 
the stand that he was a social worker and in greater public 
B interest the writ petition was filed. The State opposed the 
petition on several grounds: primarily indicating that the scope 
of judicial review of the executive, administrative and quasi-
judicial action, was extremely limited and this is not a case 
where any interference was called for. It appe~rs from the 
C impugned order of the High Court that the original file was 
called for and scanned as if the High Court was hearing an 
appeal against a decision taken. The scope for judicial review 
has been examined by this court in several cases. It has been 
consistently held that the power of judicial review is not 
0 
intended to assume a supervisory role or don the robes of 
omnipresent. The power i.s not intended either to review 
governance under the rule of law 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.