Delhi HC flags prosecutor shortage, says criminal trials affected

The Delhi High Court has raised concerns about the shortage of public prosecutors in the national capital, noting that the vacancies are severely affecting the disposal of criminal trials and bail matters, Bar and Bench reported on Wednesday. The court also said nothing before it showed that the Delhi government had taken serious steps to address the problem.

Justice Girish Kathpalia made the observations on Tuesday while hearing a plea by Delhi Director of Prosecution Maqsood Ahmed challenging a trial court order directing recovery of ₹5,000 in costs from his salary.

The High Court stayed the recovery of the amount from Ahmed's salary until the next hearing but declined to stay the costs imposed on the Delhi government by the trial court.

“Shortage of prosecutors has become a perennial problem, which severely impacts the disposals of criminal trials and even bail matters,” the court observed.

The matter arose from an October 6 order passed by an Additional Sessions Judge at the Tis Hazari Court, where no public prosecutor appeared despite repeated passovers until 11:30 am.

The trial court imposed costs of ₹5,000 on the state and directed that the amount be recovered from Ahmed's salary if it was not paid within a week. The order was also forwarded to the Home Secretary for necessary action.

Ahmed subsequently approached the High Court, challenging the direction to recover the amount from his salary.

Appearing for Ahmed, senior advocate Ramesh Gupta argued that the trial court had been informed about the acute shortage of public prosecutors and additional public prosecutors. He also submitted that the issue was already pending before a division bench of the High Court.

The counsel further argued that Ahmed had not been heard before the direction for salary recovery was issued.

While staying the recovery of costs from Ahmed's salary, Justice Kathpalia said imposing personal financial liability in the absence of a specific finding of “malfeasance” or “misfeasance” would prima facie not be proper.

The court acknowledged the pressure faced by trial judges dealing with overflowing case dockets and expectations of expeditious disposal of criminal trials and bail matters.

Describing the trial court's order as “a conspicuous expression of anguish of the trial judge”, the high court said the frustration reflected the difficulties faced by courts in ensuring timely proceedings.

However, it declined to stay the entire trial court order, including the imposition of costs on the state.

Justice Kathpalia noted that Ahmed's counsel was appearing for the Director of Prosecution and not on behalf of the Delhi government, which had not challenged the trial court's order.

The court also expressed concern over the lack of evidence showing that the state had taken serious measures to address the shortage of prosecutors.

The Delhi government was given 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.