Victim's choice of Special Public Prosecutor under atrocity rules is a substantive right, not limited to government panels.

Rule 4(5) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995, read with Section 15 of the Act, is treated as a special mechanism for effective prosecution of atrocity cases. It enables the District Magistrate or Sub-Divisional Magistrate, where the victim so desires, to engage an eminent senior advocate as Special Public Prosecutor, and this power is not confined to the Government panel under Rule 4(1). The text states that the victim's request for a chosen advocate is maintainable, and that a refusal resting only on lack of jurisdiction is unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the victim of an atrocity, under Rule 4(5) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995, could seek engagement of a particular eminent senior advocate as Special Public Prosecutor for the trial; and whether the rejection of that request on the ground of lack of jurisdiction was sustainable.

Analysis: Section 15 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Rule 4 of the 1995 Rules were read together as a special scheme for effective prosecution of atrocities cases. Rule 4(1) deals with preparation of panels, while Rule 4(5) contains a non-obstante provision enabling the District Magistrate or Sub-Divisional Magistrate to engage an eminent senior advocate if so desired by the victim of atrocity. The provision was held to confer a substantive right to seek conduct of the case by a lawyer of choice, not limited to the Government panel. The Court also noted that the reasons sought to be added by the respondents in the counter could not go beyond the impugned order, which had stated only absence of jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The request for appointment of the chosen advocate as Special Public Prosecutor was held maintainable and the refusal on the ground of want of jurisdiction was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the impugned order was set aside, and the first respondent was directed to appoint the named advocate as Special Public Prosecutor for the trial.

Ratio Decidendi: Rule 4(5) of the 1995 Rules creates an overriding power to engage an eminent senior advocate of the victim's choice for conducting an atrocity case, and that power is not confined to the Government panel contemplated by Rule 4(1).

---