Section 18 of the BNSS, 2023 (Public Prosecutors)

Section 18 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 serves as the backbone of the state’s legal representation in criminal courts. It outlines the appointment, eligibility, and hierarchy of Public Prosecutors (PPs), Additional Public Prosecutors (APPs), and Special Public Prosecutors (SPPs).

This section corresponds to Section 24 of the old CrPC. Under the BNSS, several high-value updates have been integrated, including a dedicated proviso for Delhi and a stronger emphasis on victim-centric justice through the “victim’s choice of advocate” provision, ensuring the best visible balance between state power and individual rights.

1. Appointment at the High Court Level (Sub-section 1)

The representation of the State in the highest court of the state is a top-tier administrative task.

• Authority: Both Central and State Governments have the power to appoint a Public Prosecutor and one or more Additional Public Prosecutors.
• Consultation: The appointment must be made after consultation with the High Court to ensure that only the best legal minds are chosen.
• The Delhi Proviso: A significant addition to the BNSS is the explicit proviso for the National Capital Territory of Delhi, where the Central Government (in consultation with the Delhi High Court) holds the authority to appoint PPs and APPs.

Also Read: Section 10 of the BNSS, 2023 (CJM, ACJM, and SDJM)

2. District and Local Level Appointments (Sub-sections 2 to 5)

To maintain high standards of local prosecution, the BNSS mandates a collaborative approach between the executive and the judiciary.

• District PP: The State Government shall appoint one PP and may appoint multiple APPs for each district.
• The Panel System: The District Magistrate (DM), in consultation with the Sessions Judge, prepares a panel of fit persons. The State Government is restricted from appointing anyone whose name is not on this panel (unless a regular cadre exists).
• Cross-District Appointment: To ensure optimized resource management, a PP for one district can also be appointed to handle another district.

3. The Regular Cadre of Prosecuting Officers (Sub-section 6)

The BNSS prioritizes a proven professional career path for government lawyers.

• The Rule: If a state has a “Regular Cadre of Prosecuting Officers,” the government must appoint PPs and APPs from this cadre.
• The Exception: If no suitable person is available in the cadre, the government can pivot to the DM’s panel.
• Broadened Definition: The “Prosecuting Officer” definition now explicitly includes Special Public Prosecutors, ensuring they are recognized as part of the unified state legal machinery.

4. Eligibility and Experience (Sub-sections 7 to 9)

To ensure high-quality advocacy, the BNSS sets strict professional benchmarks:

• For PP/APP: A minimum of 7 years of practice as an advocate.
• For Special PP: A minimum of 10 years of practice. These are appointed for specific “cases or classes of cases” where specialized expertise is required.
• Deemed Practice: Time spent serving as a PP, APP, or Assistant PP is counted as “practice as an advocate,” allowing career prosecutors to qualify for higher roles.

5. Victim’s Rights in Special Prosecutions (Proviso to Sub-section 8)

In a visible move toward a victim-centric system, the BNSS reinforces a crucial right:

• The Rule: In cases involving a Special Public Prosecutor, the Court may permit the victim to engage an advocate of their choice to assist the prosecution.
• Impact: This ensures the victim’s interests are not lost in the state’s broader agenda, making the process more visible and fair.

Relevant Case Laws

Correct and timely judicial precedents are essential to understand how Section 18 functions in the real world.

1. State of Haryana v. [Three Appellants] (2025/2026 INSC)

In a recent and top-tier judgment, the Supreme Court slammed the practice of political appointments.

• The Ruling: The Court held that Public Prosecutors should be appointed solely on merit, not on political considerations, favouritism, or nepotism.
• Significance: The Court emphasized that PPs are “officers of the court” whose duty is to assist in arriving at the truth, not just to win convictions. The Haryana government was ordered to pay compensation for a wrongful conviction caused by a failure of the PP to properly assist the court.

2. Sana T. v. State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court, 2025)

This case explored the scope of the victim’s advocate.

• The Ruling: While confirming the victim’s right to engage an advocate to “assist” the prosecution under Section 18, the court clarified that this advocate acts subordinate to the Public Prosecutor. The victim’s counsel cannot independently conduct oral arguments or examine witnesses unless permitted by the court through the PP.

3. Rekha Murarka v. State of West Bengal (2019)

Though decided under the old Code, this remains a proven standard for the BNSS.

• The Ruling: The Supreme Court held that the role of the victim’s advocate is to “assist” and not to replace the PP. The PP remains the “captain of the ship” to ensure the trial remains impartial and is not turned into a personal vendetta.

Summary of Changes: BNSS vs. CrPC

Rationale: Strengthening the Prosecution

The reforms in Section 18 ensure that the state’s legal wing is:

• Professional: By favoring regular cadres and merit-based panels.
• Independent: By insulating appointments from purely political whim (as highlighted in the 2026 SC ruling).
• Accessible: By giving victims a visible seat at the table through their choice of counsel.