Editor,

I wish to draw attention to the serious concern arising from the recent Advertisement No 06/2026 dated 9th September 2026, issued by the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC) for 18 posts of assistant public prosecutor.

The advertisement has created deep disappointment and a sense of constitutional injustice among the young law graduates of the state, as it prescribes a mandatory eligibility criterion of 7 years of active practice as an advocate in criminal law.

1. A direct conflict with central law - BNSS, 2023: State cannot override Parliament

The appointment of prosecutors is governed by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which is a central law passed by Parliament under Entry 2 of the Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule.

Under Articles 246 and 254 of the Constitution of India, in case of repugnancy between a central law and a state rule on a concurrent subject, the central law prevails.

Sections 19(1) to 19(3) of the BNSS deal with assistant public prosecutors and nowhere prescribe 7 years of experience. On the contrary, Section 18(7) of the BNSS specifically prescribes 7 years of practice only for the post of public prosecutor and additional public prosecutor, who conduct cases in the court of sessions - a much higher and senior post.

By prescribing the same 7-year criterion for an entry-level, Group B post of assistant public prosecutor, the state recruitment rule is not only without statutory backing but is also directly in conflict with the legislative intent of Parliament. A subordinate legislation cannot override a substantive provision of a central Act. This is ultra vires and liable to be struck down.

2. A legal anomaly: How can the eligibility for a subordinate post be equated with that of its superior post?

This is the biggest legal absurdity in the notification.

In the prosecution hierarchy, the structure is: public prosecutor/additional public prosecutor > assistant public prosecutor.

The assistant public prosecutor is subordinate to the public prosecutor and assists him in the court of magistrate. It is a settled principle of service jurisprudence that the eligibility criteria for a subordinate post cannot be equal to or more rigorous than those for its superior post.

If 7 years is required for a public prosecutor who conducts sessions trials for murder and other heinous offences, how can the same 7 years be justified for an assistant public prosecutor who conducts trials in magisterial courts? This violates the doctrine of reasonableness and proportionality under Article 14 of the Constitution.

3. Violative of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 16 and 19(1)(g)

a) Violates Article 14 (Right to Equality): It creates an unreasonable classification without intelligible differentia. It equates two unequal posts - assistant public prosecutor and public prosecutor. It is manifestly arbitrary.

b) Violates Article 16 (Equality of Opportunity in Public Employment): An LLB degree is completed at 24-26 years. With 7 years of experience, a candidate becomes eligible only at 33-34 years, leaving barely 1-2 years before crossing the upper age limit.

For veterinary officers, assistant engineers, ADOs under APPSC, no such prolonged experience is required. This creates hostile discrimination against law graduates alone.

c) Violates Article 19 (1) (g) (Right to Practice Profession): It imposes an unreasonable restriction on the right of young advocates to seek public employment.

d) Against the policy of the Supreme Court to encourage young talent: In a recent progressive development, the Supreme Court has modified its earlier judgment rendered in WP(C) No 1022 of 1989, All India Judges Association vs Union of India, wherein a mandatory requirement of 3 years' practice was prescribed to be eligible for the examination of judicial magistrate first class-cum-civil judge (junior division). Vide its landmark judgment dated 21 August, 2026, a bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, Justice Surya Kant, has reduced the said mandatory period from 3 years to only 1 year of active practice to enable fresh and meritorious law graduates to enter the judiciary at an early age. If the experience criteria can be relaxed for a judicial magistrate who is vested with the sovereign power to decide the fate of cases, why is an exorbitant experience of 7 years insisted upon for an assistant public prosecutor who represents the state in such magistrate courts?

4. Arunachal becomes an outlier - A pan-India comparison

Å Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Bihar Public Service Commission, Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Haryana Public Service Commission: No prior experience - fresh graduates are eligible.

Å Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission: 2 years.

Å Delhi Public Service Commission: 3 years.

Arunachal Pradesh, by prescribing 7 years, has become the harshest in the entire country, thereby depriving its own tribal and local aspirants of an equal opportunity.

It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that, in the interest of justice, federalism, and the future of hundreds of young law graduates of Arunachal Pradesh, the Government of Arunachal Pradesh and the APPSC may kindly reconsider the matter and relax the experience criteria for assistant public prosecutor from 7 years to 3 years or a maximum of 5 years, in consonance with the BNSS, 2023 and the practice followed across India.

An aggrieved candidate