HIGH COURT ADVOCATE WRITES TO STATE GOVT. AND HPSC, CITING STATE GOVT. BUSINESS ALLOCATION RULES AND PROVISION IN BNSS, 2023
Face2News/Chandigarh
A significant statutory and administrative controversy has surfaced in Haryana after an Advocate practising in the Punjab and Haryana High Court accused the Haryana Public Service Commission (HPSC) of repeatedly referring to a legally non-existent “Prosecution Department” while conducting the ongoing recruitment for 255 Assistant District Attorneys (ADAs).
In a detailed legal representation submitted to Governor Prof. Ashim Kumar Ghosh, Chief Minister Nayab Singh (who also holds Home Portfolio), the HPSC Chairman and Members, State Home Secretary (ACS) and senior Department officers, the Advocate General, the Lokayukta, the Haryana State Law Commission, Legal Remembrancer (LR), and other senior authorities, Advocate Hemant Kumar has sought immediate correction of what he describes as a continuing statutory and administrative illegality.
The Representation challenges the terminology used in Advertisement No. 18/2025, recruitment notices, examination documents and even the Screening Test Result declared on July 24, 2026, all of which identify the recruiting organisation as the “Prosecution Department.”
‘No Such Department Exists’
According to the representation, no independent “Prosecution Department” exists under the constitutional framework governing the Government of Haryana.
Hemant argues that the Business of the Haryana Government (Allocation) Rules, 1974, framed by the Governor under Article 166 of the Constitution, exhaustively enumerate every department of the State Government and contain no reference whatsoever to any “Prosecution Department.”
Instead, he points out that the Directorate of Prosecution presently functions under the Home Department, having earlier functioned under the Administration of Justice Department before its transfer in 2025.
“A Directorate may function under a Department, but a Department cannot legally function under another Department,” the representation states, contending that describing the Directorate as a “Prosecution Department under the Home Department” is constitutionally impermissible, asserted Hemant.
Parliament Recognizes Only a ‘Directorate of Prosecution’
The representation further relies upon Section 20(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which mandates that every State Government establish a Directorate of Prosecution under the administrative control of the Home Department.
Hemant notes that the earlier Section 25A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, contained an identical legislative mandate, thereby maintaining statutory continuity for nearly two decades.
He argues that Parliament has consistently recognised only the Directorate of Prosecution, and never a “Prosecution Department.”
‘Executive Orders Cannot Create Government Departments’
The representation also disputes a justification reportedly advanced earlier by the Directorate of Prosecution, which relied upon executive instructions issued during 1981 describing the Prosecution Department as a permanent department.
Calling this stand legally untenable, Hemant Kumar argues that executive orders cannot create, rename or recognise Government departments, as such powers rest exclusively with the constitutional Business of the Haryana Government (Allocation) Rules, 1974, framed under Article 166.
He contends that unless those Rules are formally amended, no executive circular or departmental communication can confer constitutional existence upon a department unknown to the Allocation of Business Rules.
Violation of Three Legal Instruments Alleged
The representation alleges that the continued use of the expression “Prosecution Department” violates three separate legal frameworks:
Articles 166(2) and 166(3) of the Constitution of India;
The Business of the Haryana Government (Allocation) Rules, 1974; and
Section 20(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (earlier Section 25A of the CrPC).
According to the representation, the issue has moved far beyond a drafting error because the disputed terminology now appears across official advertisements, recruitment notices, examination material, departmental correspondence and examination results issued during the ongoing recruitment exercise.Directions Sought
The representation urges the State Government and constitutional authorities to formally declare that “Prosecution Department” has no constitutional or statutory existence, direct the HPSC to replace the expression with the legally correct “Directorate of Prosecution” in all recruitment documents, and issue uniform instructions requiring every Government department, commission, board and statutory authority to use only the constitutionally recognised nomenclature.
It also seeks an examination of the legal validity of the executive instructions relied upon by the Directorate of Prosecution in the light of Article 166 of the Constitution.
Issue of Constitutional Governance
Describing the controversy as one involving constitutional governance rather than mere semantics, Hemant maintains that every official communication issued by constitutional authorities must accurately reflect the legal identity of Government institutions.
He has expressed hope that the authorities will take prompt corrective action to reinforce constitutional discipline, statutory compliance and administrative transparency across the State.
Haryana
Trending
