Years-long legal battle over the promotion and regularization of a Special Public Prosecutor resurfaces, with the Chief Justice raising constitutional and procedural concerns over misuse of public office and funds.
TFM Report
A group of senior Assistant Public Prosecutors (APPs) in Manipur has reignited a years-long legal battle by filing a writ appeal in the High Court of Manipur, challenging the regularization of Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Asem Neelakumar Singh. The appeal contests the judgment passed on December 27, 2024, by Justice A Guneshwar Sharma in W.P. (C) No. 540 of 2022, which upheld Neelakumar Singh’s appointment by modifying his designation from Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) to Special Public Prosecutor (SPP).
The appellants allege that the move violates both the 1982 and 2019 Recruitment Rules and undermines constitutional guarantees of fair opportunity in public employment under Articles 14 and 16.
The case has attracted national legal attention, with prominent public interest litigation lawyer Prashant Bhushan representing the petitioners in his first appearance before the Manipur High Court, assisted by advocates Chongtham Victor and H. Chandrakumar.
Alleged Violations of Recruitment Norms
According to the appellants—who were contractually appointed between 2009 and 2010 and regularized in 2016—the State had violated explicit rules stipulating that promotions to the post of Additional Public Prosecutor should be made internally, and that direct recruitment can only occur when no eligible internal candidates are available.
Despite these norms, Neelakumar Singh, who was engaged contractually in 2019, was regularized through an executive order dated July 8, 2022. The petitioners argue that this was in clear defiance of judicial orders and recruitment policies.
A Legal History of Defiance
The case has a complex legal history starting with W.P. (C) No. 896 of 2018, where the High Court had expressly barred the State from making direct appointments to promotional posts. However, the State proceeded to regularize Neelakumar Singh’s appointment, leading to fresh litigation including W.P. (C) No. 5 of 2020 and a contempt petition in 2021.
While the High Court’s December 2024 judgment acknowledged the irregularity of the appointment, it nonetheless upheld it by modifying the role to that of SPP and suggesting that the State could create a supernumerary post if necessary.
The appellants argue that this amounts to judicial overreach, effectively enabling a backdoor appointment that blocks their rightful promotional opportunities. Citing landmark Supreme Court rulings such as Karnataka State RTC v. Ashrafulla Khan and Panchraj Tiwari v. M.P. SEB, they maintain that regularizing illegal appointments undermines the principle of merit-based public service.
Chief Justice Pulls Up State Government
During the hearing of the writ appeal, the Chief Justice K. Somashekar read aloud Section 24 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which lays down the provisions for public prosecutor appointments, and emphasized that the State had violated the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (2006). The other judge of the Division Bench was Justice Ahanthem Bimol Singh.
In scathing oral observations, the Chief Justice remarked that a single-judge bench does not have the authority to direct appointments, stating, “The court is not the appointing authority for public prosecutors.”
He further warned that “there can be no consented agreement in the case of a public post involving public money”, highlighting the need for transparency and accountability in government appointments. The Chief Justice added that only the Manipur Public Service Commission has the constitutional mandate to recruit for such posts and that “proper appointment procedure must be followed.”
He also noted that Neelakumar Singh’s appointment was carried out by invoking the “doctrine of pleasure,” a discretionary power that cannot override constitutional safeguards and established recruitment norms.
Division Bench Stays Single-Bench Order
After hearing arguments from both parties, the Division Bench directed that the single bench’s order cannot be implemented at this stage, especially given that it stands in violation of the High Court’s earlier prohibition against appointing Additional Public Prosecutors through direct recruitment.
The writ appeal now seeks to quash both the December 27, 2024 judgment and the executive regularization order dated July 8, 2022, while also requesting enforcement of the High Court’s June 1, 2022 directive.
The petitioners are seeking interim relief to stay the impugned order pending the final verdict. The case has once again brought into sharp focus the issues of transparency, constitutional propriety, and the rule of law in public appointments in Manipur.