The Delhi High Court on Tuesday expressed concern over the shortage of public prosecutors to conduct criminal trials in the national capital [Maqsood Ahmed v State NCT of Delhi].
Justice Girish Kathpalia observed that the shortage of prosecutors was affecting the disposal of criminal trials and bail matters.
"Shortage of prosecutors has become a perennial problem, which severely impacts the disposals of criminal trials and even bail matters. This is not a new problem," noted the Court.
The Court made the observation while hearing staying a trial court's direction to recover ₹5,000 in costs from the salary of Delhi’s Director of Prosecution over the absence of a public prosecutor during a hearing
The Court held that although the trial judge's frustration over delays in criminal proceedings was understandable, making the Director of Prosecution personally pay the costs without specific findings of misconduct may not be proper.
The plea before the High Court was filed by Director of Prosecution Maqsood Ahmed, challenging an October 6 trial court order in a criminal case arising from a 2002 First Information Report (FIR) involving robbery charges.
The trial court had imposed ₹5,000 in costs on the State after no public prosecutor appeared despite repeated passovers. It directed that the amount be recovered from Ahmed's salary if unpaid within a week and forwarded the order to the Home Secretary for necessary action.
The High Court acknowledged the trial judge's frustration but questioned holding Ahmed personally liable without specific findings of misconduct.
"The impugned order is a conspicuous expression of anguish of the trial judge, who faces pressure of overflowing dockets and expectation of the superior courts as regards expeditious disposal of the bail matters and even trials. At the same time, directions for recovery of the cost from salary of the petitioner in the absence of any specific observation regarding any malfeasance or misfeasance, would prima facie not be proper," said the Court.
Before the High Court, Ahmed argued that there was an acute shortage of prosecutors. He submitted that the regular assistant public prosecutor had been on leave since September 21, and he had not been heard before the salary-recovery direction was passed by the trial court.
Taking note of the submissions, the High Court stayed the direction to recover the costs from Ahmed's salary. It, however, refused to stay the costs imposed on the State.
It also expressed concern over the lack of steps taken by the State to address the shortage of prosecutors.
"There is nothing before me to show any serious steps being taken by the State. Rather, State has not even challenged the said order. Therefore, I am not inclined to stay imposition of cost on the State," said the Court.
It gave the State an opportunity to file a detailed reply or status report at least one week before the next hearing.
The matter will be heard again on February 3, 2027.
Senior Advocate Ramesh Gupta along with advocate Hemant Gupta appeared for the petitioner.
Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Manjeet Arya represented the State.
[Read Order]