'Undermines Fair Trial': PIL In AP High Court Questions Police Body Conducting Recruitment Exam For Assistant Public Prosecutors

The PIL, filed by a law clerk, argues that bestowing power to select APPs, who are meant to be independent officers of the Court and are tasked with scrutinising police investigations, on the police department contradicts the principle of separation of police and prosecution, and also undermines prosecutorial independence and the right to a fair trial.

"If their recruitment is conducted by the same department whose conduct they are expected to scrutinize in court, it gravely undermines the independence of the judiciary and impartiality of the right to Fair Trail for the victim protected under Art. 21 of the Constitution," the plea states.

The power to recruit and appoint APPs, the PIL argues, should instead be vested with the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, which is the constitutionally empowered recruitment body for civil servants.

Apart from the institutional competence of APSLPRB, the PIL also highlights that the recruitment notification of 2025 broadly states that appointments shall be made as per the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 (1996 Rules), however, the same fails to specify whether the candidates so recruited would be permanent or temporary. It highlights a notable conflict between Rule 10(a) of the 1996 Rules— which classify appointments as “purely temporary” and allow termination without prior notice, and the Andhra Pradesh State Prosecution Rules, 1992— which treat APPs as permanent gazetted government employees, alike civil servants, who are entitled to service safeguards, benefits and protection against arbitrary termination under Article 311 of the Constitution.

The PIL notes that candidates who underwent the formal exam and interview process are entitled to expect permanent appointment unless specified otherwise, and if such candidates invested time and resources based on the presumption of permanency, then the State cannot take a unilateral step violating their “legitimate expectation” which is protected under Articles 14 and 16.

Further, the PIL argues that APPs are civil servants whose employment, as protected under Article 311, cannot be arbitrarily terminated without issuing show cause or following due process of law.

Against this backdrop, a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Ravi Cheemalapati sought the State's response.

The matter is now listed on 05.11.2025.

Case Details:

Case Number: WP(PIL) No. 171 of 2025

Case Title: Balabadruni Naga Satwik v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.

Click Here To Read/Download Order