Source: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Ajeet Patel and Others v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others has held that the accused cannot be granted with the right of Pre audience to determine the process or the authority of his investigation.

What was the Background of the Ajeet Patel and Others v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others Case?

• In this case the petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (COI).
• The petitioner demanded the issuance of any suitable writ by which the police authorities (Respondents) can be directed to conduct a fair investigation against the petitioners, as per the statutory provisions of law in the interest of justice.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Madhya Pradesh High Court by referring the case of Romila Thapar v. Union of India (2018) held that:
  • The accused does not have the right to decide which authority should investigate him as the credibility of the investigation is of great importance and it cannot be compromised by allowing the accused to decide.
  • The present petition holds no room for consideration.
  • Such demand has no legal backing and if permitted would be prejudicial to the process of investigation.
• The Madhya Pradesh High Court therefore dismissed the petition for directing investigation.

What is Pre- Audience?

About:

• The right of pre-audience is given under Section 23 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
• It means the right of being heard before others.
• This right is generally vested with the Advocated enrolled with the Bar Council of India and State Bar Councils.
• There is an order of priority given under Section 23 of the Advocates Act, 1961 itself as:
  • Attorney General: He/she has pre-audience over all other advocates.
  • Solicitor General of India
  • Additional Solicitor General of India
  • Second Additional Solicitor General of India
  • Advocate General of any State
  • Senior Advocates
  • Other Advocates
• The right of pre-audience can also be adjudged as a moral right, which can be related to the years old Indian practice of respecting elders, which is now incorporated into legal practice through the right of pre-audience.

Landmark Judgements:

• Prabal Dogra v. Superintendent of Police, Gwalior and State of Madhya Pradesh (2017): The Court held that accused has no say in the matter of investigation.
• Romila Thapar v. Union of India (2018): The Supreme Court in this case held that the accused has no right to direct the investigation by the authority and the appointment of the investigating authority.