The Delhi High Court has expressed concern over the persistent shortage of public prosecutors in the national capital, observing that the problem is seriously affecting the disposal of criminal trials and bail applications. The Court also noted that there was nothing on record to indicate that the Delhi government had taken serious measures to address the shortage.
Justice Girish Kathpalia made the observations while hearing a petition filed by Maqsood Ahmed, Delhi’s Director of Prosecution, challenging a trial court order directing the recovery of ₹5,000 in costs from his salary following the absence of a public prosecutor during a hearing.
The High Court observed that the shortage of prosecutors was a longstanding issue rather than a recent development. It noted that the continuing problem was adversely affecting the criminal justice system, particularly as courts grapple with mounting pendency and expectations of expeditious disposal of cases.
The petition arose from an October 6 order passed by an Additional Sessions Judge at Tis Hazari Courts in a criminal case relating to robbery allegations arising from a 2002 FIR.
The trial court had imposed costs of ₹5,000 on the State after a public prosecutor failed to appear despite repeated passovers. It further directed that the amount be recovered from Ahmed’s salary if the payment was not made within a week and forwarded the order to the Home Secretary for necessary action.
Challenging the direction, Ahmed approached the High Court seeking relief against the personal financial liability imposed on him.
Justice Kathpalia stayed the recovery of the amount from Ahmed’s salary until the next hearing. The Court observed that while the trial judge’s frustration over delays in criminal proceedings was understandable, fastening personal liability on the Director of Prosecution required a more specific justification.
The High Court noted that the trial court’s order reflected the difficulties faced by judges dealing with overflowing dockets and pressure to ensure the timely disposal of bail applications and criminal trials.
However, it said that directing recovery from the petitioner’s salary, without a specific finding of misconduct or improper conduct on his part, would prima facie be inappropriate.
During the proceedings, senior advocate Ramesh Gupta, appearing for Ahmed, submitted that the trial court had been informed about the acute shortage of public prosecutors and additional public prosecutors in Delhi.
He also pointed out that the broader issue of inadequate prosecutorial strength was already pending consideration before a Division Bench of the High Court.
The Court expressed concern that despite the longstanding nature of the problem, there was no material before it demonstrating that the State had taken serious steps to resolve the shortage.
It observed that inadequate prosecutorial strength was affecting not only the progress of criminal trials but also the adjudication of bail matters, where delays can have a direct bearing on personal liberty.
The State accepted notice through its counsel, who was permitted to file a detailed response along with a status report at least one week before the next hearing.
The High Court, however, declined to stay the entire trial court order. It clarified that Ahmed’s counsel was representing the Director of Prosecution and not the State, which had not independently challenged the order imposing costs on it.
The High Court has listed the matter for further hearing on February 3, 2027. The interim protection granted by the Court is limited to recovery of the costs from Ahmed’s salary.
The proceedings bring renewed attention to the administrative challenges confronting criminal courts in Delhi, where the shortage of prosecutors has been identified as a significant impediment to the timely conduct of trials.
Public prosecutors represent the State in criminal proceedings, conduct examinations of witnesses, present evidence and respond to bail applications. Inadequate staffing can lead to adjournments, delay the examination of witnesses and prolong proceedings, affecting both accused persons and victims awaiting the conclusion of trials.
The High Court’s observations underline the need for the authorities to address prosecutorial vacancies and ensure that the functioning of criminal courts is not compromised by persistent staffing deficiencies.
The post Delhi High Court flags chronic shortage of public prosecutors, says government has taken no serious steps appeared first on India Legal.