International Journal For Multidisciplinary Research
E-ISSN: 2582-2160
•
Impact Factor: 9.24
A Widely Indexed Open Access Peer Reviewed Multidisciplinary Bi-monthly Scholarly International Journal
Home
Research Paper
Submit Research Paper
Publication Guidelines
Publication Charges
Upload Documents
Track Status / Pay Fees / Download Publication Certi.
Editors & Reviewers
View All
Join as a Reviewer
Get Membership Certificate
Current Issue
Publication Archive
Conference
Publishing Conf. with IJFMR
Upcoming Conference(s) ↓
Conferences Published ↓
DePaul-2026
IC-AIRCM-T3-2026
NSSFIGTMA-2025
SPHERE-2025
AIMAR-2025
SVGASCA-2025
ICRTET-4
ICCE-2025
Chinai-2023
PIPRDA-2023
ICMRS'23
Contact Us
Plagiarism is checked by the leading plagiarism checker
Call for Paper
Volume 8 Issue 5
September-October 2026
Indexing Partners
Directorate of Prosecution Under Section 20 Bnss, 2023 - a Dead Letter or a Game Changer : a Critical Comparative Analysis of the Punjab, Haryana, and Delhi Models
| Author(s) | Dr. SOHAN SINGH |
|---|---|
| Country | India |
| Abstract | Section 20 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) substantially reworks the statutory architecture of the Directorate of Prosecution inherited from section 25A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The provision contemplates a State Directorate, a District Directorate in every district, enhanced eligibility standards for senior prosecutorial administrators, a formal hierarchy, and differentiated supervisory responsibilities based on the seriousness of offences. It also places the Directorate under the administrative control of the State Home Department. The provision, therefore, presents a constitutional and administrative paradox: it seeks to professionalise prosecution while leaving its institutional administration within the executive chain of government. This paper examines whether section 20 is capable of producing a genuine transformation in criminal justice administration or whether it risks becoming a paper reform. It adopts a doctrinal, comparative and implementation-oriented methodology, focusing on Punjab, Haryana and Delhi. The paper argues that section 20 is best understood as an enabling institutional framework rather than a self-executing reform. Its success will depend on four conditions: functional prosecutorial independence, timely staffing, effective district-level supervision, and measurable accountability. The comparative evidence suggests that Haryana offers institutional depth, Punjab offers a significant legacy administrative structure that can be adapted, and Delhi offers the clearest case study of implementation failure followed by corrective institutional action. The paper concludes that section 20 can become a game changer only if States treat prosecution as a professional public institution rather than merely another administrative wing of the Home Department. |
| Keywords | Directorate of Prosecution; Deputy Director of Prosecution, Assistant Director of Prosecution, Public Prosecutor; prosecutorial independence; Punjab; Haryana; Delhi; criminal justice administration. |
| Published In | Volume 8, Issue 5, September-October 2026 |
| Published On | 2026-09-19 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.36948/ijfmr.2026.v08i05.87985 |
Share this

E-ISSN 2582-2160
CrossRef DOI prefix of IJFMR is 10.36948/ijfmr
All research papers published on this website are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License, and all rights belong to their respective authors/researchers.
Powered by Sky Research Publication and Journals