Is non-preparation of a panel under Section 24 CrPC a curable defect?

No. The District Magistrate must prepare a panel of suitable names in consultation with the Sessions Judge. Skipping it violates Section 24(4)-(5).

Do general remarks on unsuitability satisfy Section 24(4)?

No. Vague, blanket remarks are not enough. Reasons must be clear and specific to each candidate.

What is meant by ‘effective consultation’ in Section 24?

A real, meaningful exchange between the District Magistrate and the Sessions Judge before finalising the panel and appointments.

Is judicial review of these appointments allowed?

Yes, courts may review the decision-making process for legal infirmity but cannot substitute their own choice of candidate.

What was finally decided in this case?

Supreme Court ordered the process to be redone as per law; allowed appeals of those recommended for extension by the Sessions Judge; dismissed appeals of those in List B.

Law Easy

02 November, 2025

101

Harpal Singh Chauhan v. State of U.P. (1993) — Section 24 CrPC & Public Prosecutor Appointments | The Law Easy

Harpal Singh Chauhan v. State of U.P. (AIR 1993 SC 2436)

Section 24 CrPC sets a clear road: prepare a panel, consult properly, give reasons. If this road is skipped, the process fails.

```

Supreme Court of India Year: 1993 Citation: AIR 1993 SC 2436 Area: Criminal Procedure Bench: SC Reading Time: ~7 min

Author: Gulzar Hashmi · India · Published: 2025-11-02

```

CASE_TITLE: Harpal Singh Chauhan v. State of U.P. PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: Section 24 CrPC, Public Prosecutor appointment, panel & consultation SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: judicial review, District Magistrate, Sessions Judge, reasons PUBLISH_DATE: 2025-11-02 AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi LOCATION: India Slug: harpal-singh-chauhan-v-state-of-up-air-1993-sc-2436

Quick Summary

This case fixes the basics for appointing Public Prosecutors/Additional Public Prosecutors under Section 24 CrPC. The District Magistrate must prepare a panel of suitable names after effective consultation with the Sessions Judge. General remarks like “not suitable” are not enough. Courts can review the process, but they will not pick candidates.

No panel + poor consultation = process illegal.
Reasons must be clear and specific, not vague.
Remedy: redo the appointment exercise as per law.

Issues

Is non-preparation of a Section 24 panel a curable defect?
Do general comments on non-suitability meet Section 24(4)?
How far can courts review appointments of District Government Counsels?

Rules

Panel + Consultation: DM must prepare a panel in consultation with the Sessions Judge.
Reasons: Vague comments do not satisfy Section 24.
Effective Consultation: Real, meaningful exchange—not a formality.
Judicial Review: Courts check the process for legal flaws; they do not choose lawyers.

Facts (Timeline)

Timeline illustration of the Harpal Singh Chauhan case

Appointments: Appellants served as Assistant District Government Counsels (akin to Additional PPs) for fixed terms.

Lists by DJ: District Judge made List A (approve/extend) and List B (average).

Recommendations: Appellants recommended for extension; included in List A.

DM’s stand: DM did not recommend them, citing reputation/behaviour concerns—without specifics.

Govt action: State rejected DJ’s recommendations without reasons.

Litigation: Writs in Allahabad HC dismissed; appeals reached Supreme Court.

Arguments

Appellants

DM failed Section 24: no proper panel, no effective consultation.
Remarks were vague; violated duty to give specific reasons.
Government rejected DJ’s advice mechanically and unlawfully.

State/Respondent

DM and Government acted in public interest.
Suitability concerns justified ignoring the recommendations.
Court should not interfere with executive choice of counsel.

Judgment

Held: The procedure under Section 24(4)–(5) CrPC was not followed. The DM failed to prepare a proper panel and did not engage in effective consultation with the Sessions Judge. The DM’s comments were vague and general. Judicial review is available to check such process flaws, but courts will not pick or replace candidates. The consideration must be done afresh as per law. Appeals of those the Sessions Judge had recommended for extension were allowed; appeals of those in List B were dismissed.

Ratio

Section 24 CrPC is mandatory in substance. Appointments require a panel, effective consultation, and reasoned decisions. Courts oversee the legality of the process; they do not make the appointments.

Why It Matters

Protects fairness and transparency in choosing Public Prosecutors.
Prevents arbitrary rejection of the Sessions Judge’s views.
Clarifies the scope of judicial review in such appointments.

Key Takeaways

Panel first—then appointment.
Consult seriously with the Sessions Judge.
Give reasons—avoid vague labels.
Courts review the process, not candidates.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic — “P-C-R” (Panel • Consult • Reasons)

Panel: Prepare a lawful list of suitable names.
Consult: Engage the Sessions Judge meaningfully.
Reasons: Record clear, candidate-specific reasons.

IRAC Outline

Issue	Validity of appointments without a Section 24 panel and with vague rejection of candidates.
Rule	DM must prepare a panel after effective consultation; reasons must be specific; courts review process, not merits.
Application	No proper panel; consultation ineffective; remarks vague; Government ignored DJ’s recommendations without reasons.
Conclusion	Process illegal; redo appointments as per Section 24. Relief granted to those the Sessions Judge recommended.

Glossary

Section 24 CrPC: Law on appointing Public Prosecutors/Additional PPs—panel, consultation, reasons.
Effective Consultation: Genuine, reasoned exchange between DM and Sessions Judge before finalising names.
Judicial Review: Court checks whether legal procedure was followed; it does not make the appointment.

FAQs

No. The panel is the starting point of the Section 24 process and cannot be skipped.

No. Each candidate needs clear, specific reasons if rejected.

No. Courts only check whether the legal steps were followed properly.

The process was ordered to be done afresh. Those recommended by the Sessions Judge got relief; those in List B did not.

```

Comment

Nothing for now