KOCHI: Expressing displeasure over the appointment of Special Public Prosecutors (SPP) in all 14 districts for handling Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) cases, the High Court has asked the state government to explain the procedure it followed for their posting.
The court mainly cited the instances of five out of 14 SPPs appointed by the state. One of those five SPPs – M G Sindhu who was appointed in Wayanad – is a criminal case accused.“The District Collector’s (Wayanad) records show Sindhu’s name figured in the crime records pending before the Magistrate Court. However, when the list was forwarded to the District Judge, the information was kept away... How can a person against whom criminal cases are pending be appointed as SPP while ignoring others with cleaner track records?” the court observed.
On G Subrothan’s appointment in Kollam, the court said the records reveal the District Judge concerned could not assess his merit and had recommended at least two other persons as being good. “How, then, could the government appoint Subrothan even though he was evidently not assessed?” the court said.
The court also took exception to the appointment of Aisha P Jamal in Malappuram. “As advocate, Jamal has seven years and seven months of practice against the minimum qualification of seven years as mandated. It would not have been a problem if the situation was similar to all the other persons figuring on the list forwarded by the District Collector,” it said.