50 YEARS AGO IN 1976, PARLIAMENT OMITTED THE TERM “ATTORNEY” ITSELF FROM ADVOCATES ACT HOWEVER SERVICE RULES FOR IN-SERVICE LAW OFFICERS IN HARYANA CONTINUE TO MENTION IT, FURTHER, PROSECUTION IN HARYANA NOT A DEPARTMENT BUT ACTUALLY & OFFICIALLY A DIRECTORATE UNDER HOME DEPARTMENT AS PER STATE GOVT. BUSINESS ALLOCATION RULES AS ALSO MANDATED UNDER SECTION 20(3) OF BNSS, 2023– ADVOCATE HEMANT KUMAR
Face2News/Chandigarh
The recent selection of 245 Assistant District Attorneys (ADAs) for Prosecution Department by the Haryana Public Service Commission (HPSC) has brought renewed attention to the nomenclature of in-service Law Officers and the legal-administrative status of the state’s Prosecution establishment.
The final result for ADAs, declared by HPSC last month on October 22 against 255 advertised posts has however left 10 vacancies unfilled in view of pending court cases. The date also marked the completion of outgoing HPSC chairman Alok Verma’s six-year tenure.
Advocate Hemant Kumar of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, who keeps a close eye on administrative and legal developments in Haryana has questioned the continued use of the term ‘Attorney’ in Haryana State Prosecution Legal Service Rules and the description of Prosecution as an independent government Department. He has approached the Governor, Chief Minister, Chief Secretary, Home Secretary, Advocate General (AG), Legal Remembrancer (LR) and Director of Prosecution etc. seeking clarification of the applicable legal framework and a review of the relevant service rules. Replies to his communication remain awaited, he says.
1976 amendment at the centre of the nomenclature debate
The controversy centres on the Haryana State Prosecution Legal Service (Group B) Rules, 2001, which provide for the post of Assistant District Attorney (ADAs), and the Haryana State Prosecution Legal Service (Group A) Rules, 2013, which cover District Attorneys (DAs) and Deputy District Attorneys (DDAs).
Hemant argues that the continued use of term Attorney in these designations deserves scrutiny in the light of 50 years old amendment to the Advocates Act, 1961 by the Parliament via Advocates (Amendment) Act, 1976 which completely omitted the term Attorney itself from the ibid enactment.
According to Hemant, the Haryana Govt. should examine whether its existing nomenclature remains legally appropriate and, if necessary, amend the State Prosecution Legal Service Rules to bring the terminology into line with the applicable statutory framework.
The issue, however, goes beyond terminology. The legal question is whether the specific designations adopted under Haryana’s service rules have a valid statutory and administrative basis.
Hemant has suggested alternatives such as Government Advocate, Government Counsel or Law Officer, subject to examination of the governing laws and service requirements.
One officer, different designations in service rules and courts?
A further question raised in the representation concerns the distinction between service-cadre designations and the professional capacities in which government counsels appear before courts.
Hemant points out that law officers appointed as ADAs, DDAs and DAs are officially designated as Public Prosecutors (PPs) under provisions of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, (BNSS), 2023 ( before July, 2024 under Code of Criminal Proceudre (CrPC), 1973) for criminal proceedings and Government Pleaders (GPs) (under provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908) in civil matters, in accordance with the applicable legal provisions and government notifications.
He argues that the state should clearly explain the relationship between these courtroom designations and the titles prescribed under its Prosecution legal service rules.
The distinction is important: a service-cadre designation and an appointment or designation under procedural law may serve different legal purposes. Their coexistence does not automatically establish a conflict, but the relevant statutory provisions, appointment orders and notifications need to be examined together.
Hemant has also cited the Haryana Law Officers (Engagement) Act, 2016, which uses a different nomenclature framework, and the designations prevalent in the Haryana Advocate General’s office, including Senior Additional Advocate General, Additional Advocate General, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Deputy Advocate General and Assistant Advocate General.
He maintains that these examples reinforce the need for a consistent and legally reasoned approach to the naming of government law officers. Further, in case of Central Government too, the term Attorney is nowhere used in designation of Law Officers as employed in various Ministries, Departments etc.
Is prosecution a department or a directorate?
The second major issue concerns the administrative identity of Haryana’s Prosecution establishment.
Hemant contends that Business of the Haryana Government (Allocation), 1974, framed under Article 166(3) of the Constitution, do not separately list a ‘Prosecution Department’. He argues that the state’s prosecution machinery functions as the Directorate of Prosecution under the Home Department and that official references should accurately reflect this administrative arrangement.
He further states that, before 2025, the Prosecution establishment was under the administrative control of the Administration of Justice Department.
The statutory background lends significance to the question. Earlier, Section 25A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973 (since repealed) provided for a Directorate of Prosecution and currently, Section 20 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, also provides for a Directorate of Prosecution. The BNSS came into force with effect from 1st July 2024 across the country.
Hemant argues that the continued use of ‘Prosecution Department’ in recruitment-related references and official communications should therefore be reconciled with the Haryana Govt. Rules of Business and the terminology used in the governing criminal procedure legislation.
Can a government order override the Rules of Business?
Hemant says that, when he raised the issue in February, the incumbent Director of Prosecution (General) relied on a government order issued in 1981 to justify the expression ‘Prosecution Department’.
He disputes the adequacy of that explanation, arguing that an administrative order cannot, by itself, amend constitutional Rules of Business framed under Article 166(3). In his view, any formal creation, renaming or restructuring of a government department must follow the legally prescribed procedure.
The question he wants the government to answer is whether the 1981 order remains applicable, what legal authority supports the terminology currently used, and whether the Rules of Business or subsequent government notifications require amendment or clarification.
The matter has also reached the State’s Audit establishment. According to Hemant, on July 30, the Accountant General (A&E), Haryana, forwarded the matter to the Accountant General (Audit) for further necessary action.
A call for a reasoned government response
Hematn has urged the Haryana government to undertake a comprehensive review of the Group A and Group B Prosecution Legal Service rules, clarify the legal status of the designations used for government prosecutors and establish the correct administrative nomenclature of the prosecution establishment.
He says the issue affects not only the 245 ADAs recently selected by HPSC and serving DAs, DDAs and ADAs, but also public at large of how the state’s legal machinery is constituted and governed.
At its core, the controversy raises questions of statutory interpretation, administrative consistency and transparency. The government’s response would help establish whether the existing terminology is legally justified, whether any amendments are warranted and how the service rules relate to the procedural laws governing appearances by government lawyers before civil and criminal courts.
For now, Hemant’s representations remain unanswered. The key question is whether the State will issue a reasoned clarification supported by the relevant statutes, Rules of Business and notifications—or undertake amendments if the review establishes it necessary.
