Inauguration with constitutional reverence
The inauguration of the new premises of the Directorate of Prosecution at Patto by Goa’s Chief Minister marked more than an administrative milestone. Flanked by the Chief Secretary and the Advocate General, the occasion was presented as a modernising gesture, symbolised through the distribution of laptops with legal software to government prosecutors. Yet beyond its optics, this inauguration invites reflection on the prosecutorial mandate in a Constitutional Democracy and how that mandate draws deeply from classical Indian jurisprudence.
The king as prosecutor in Dharmashastra tradition
In the Dharmashastra tradition, the sovereign was not merely a dispenser of justice but a principal initiator of criminal action. The Manusmriti (VII.27–29) underscores that danda, or punitive justice, is the king’s sacred instrument for maintaining societal order. The king’s active role in prosecution was deemed part of his rājadharma a dharmic obligation to uphold truth and protect subjects from disorder. Unlike modern systems where separation of powers restricts executive encroachment on prosecutorial discretion, ancient Indian legal theory centralised judicial, executive, and prosecutorial functions within the sovereign.
From Dharma to statecraft - bridging ancient and modern models
While classical texts permitted kings to consult Brahmin jurists, adjudicate trials, and enforce punishment, this prosecutorial fusion evolved under modern legal systems into differentiated roles investigation, prosecution, and adjudication. However, the foundational ethos that crimes are transgressions against the State and Dharma remains intact. In the contemporary legal system, the State prosecutes criminal wrongs in the name of society. This is codified in procedural law, whereby public prosecutors are appointed to conduct prosecutions on behalf of the State. The modern prosecutor, like the ancient sovereign, is tasked with upholding public justice, not pursuing private vengeance.
Independence of the prosecutor from the executive
Despite this continuity in moral function, the institutional evolution of prosecution introduces the crucial dimension of independence. The Supreme Court has consistently held that prosecutors are “officers of the court” and not instruments of executive policy (Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar, (1987) 1 SCC 288). Former Chief Justices have publicly affirmed that the public prosecutor’s independence must be preserved in letter and spirit, with absolute accountability to the court rather than to the government.
However, institutional independence is often undermined by structural subordination, resource dependence, and transfers influenced by political expediency. This is evident in the working of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), whose nominal independence was questioned by the Supreme Court in the 2G Spectrum Case and the Coalgate proceedings. The CBI was memorably described as a “caged parrot” in Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India, reflecting how prosecutorial institutions can become susceptible to the pull of executive control, even when nominally autonomous.
The illusion of autonomy - CBI as a case study
Although the CBI Director is now appointed by a collegium comprising the Prime Minister, Chief Justice of India’s nominee, and Leader of Opposition, the agency’s operational autonomy remains fraught. States such as Kerala, West Bengal, Punjab, and Maharashtra have withdrawn general consent for CBI investigations, highlighting tensions between Centre and State over prosecutorial jurisdiction. These withdrawals accentuate the paradox of a federal democracy attempting to harmonise centralised prosecution with decentralised governance.
The Supreme Court in Vineet Narain v. Union of India, (1998) 1 SCC 226, laid down directives to insulate investigative agencies from political interference by placing administrative control under the Central Vigilance Commission. Yet, as subsequent events have shown, compliance with such directives often remains only formal. The enthusiasm with which prosecutions are pursued fluctuates with political interests, and where excessive zeal supplants evidence-based adjudication, due process stands at risk.
Quelling prosecutorial overreach
The Constitution of India under Article 21 guarantees the right to a fair trial. The Supreme Court in Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, (2004) 4 SCC 158, defined fair trial to include not just judicial impartiality but prosecutorial objectivity. The Code of Criminal Procedure incorporates several procedural safeguards to curb overenthusiastic prosecution.
In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Court held that prosecution must not be used as a tool of harassment. In Reena Hazarika v. State of Assam, (2019) 13 SCC 289, the Supreme Court warned against prosecution as vengeance, especially in emotionally charged environments. A prosecutor, like the ancient sovereign guided by Dharma, must act with restraint, recognising that justice lies not in conviction but in fairness.
Locating Goa’s institutional moment in legal history
The Directorate of Prosecution’s new infrastructure in Goa must not only be seen as a facility upgrade but as a reaffirmation of the State’s commitment to constitutional governance. The move toward digitalisation of prosecution, supported by legally equipped software and improved logistical support, must be accompanied by investments in institutional integrity. The historical function of the prosecutor as embodied in the king of the Manusmriti was to protect Dharma through fair but firm retribution. In the 21st-century context, that retribution must be rendered through reasoned analysis, evidentiary thresholds, and procedural compliance.
Justice as Dharma, not discretion
The inauguration of the Directorate of Prosecution should serve as a reminder that legal institutions derive legitimacy from the quality of their action. The ancient Indian vision of law embedded in the Dharmashastras conceives justice not as a spectacle but as a sacred function. Goa’s prosecutorial machinery, equipped now with modern infrastructure, bears the solemn duty to pursue not just convictions but justice rooted in constitutional morality.
