Opening The Rift
therift
© 2026 The Rift. All Rights Reserved.
Delhi HC Laments Shortage Of Prosecutors Severely Impacting Criminal Trials
The Delhi High Court laments the acute shortage of public prosecutors, calling it a ‘perennial problem’ severely impacting criminal trials.
Key Takeaways
1 of 3
Automatically generated. Read full article for complete context.
It is definitely a matter of extremely grave concern that none other than the Delhi High Court which is one of the most prestigious High Courts in India with an impeccable track record in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Maqsood Ahmed v State NCT of Delhi in CNR No. DLHC010506232026 and Crl.M.C. 7915/2026 that was pronounced most recently on 27.10.2026 has expressed its utmost serious concern over the acute shortage of Public ProsecutorsRole in Criminal JusticeLegal representatives of the state or government in criminal proceedings, responsible for presenting the case against an accused person. to conduct Criminal Trials in the national capital. It must be noted that the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Girish Kathpalia has minced no words to hold unequivocally that the shortage of prosecutors was affecting the disposal of criminal trials and Bail Matters. To put it differently, the Bench put forth unambiguously that, “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.” It thus merits absolutely just no reiteration that there is absolutely just no prima facie reason that can justify such most pathetic state of affairs.
It merits noting that the Delhi High Court made the key observation while hearing staying a Trial Court’s direction to recover Rs 5000 in costs from the salary of Delhi’s Director of Prosecution over the absence of a public prosecutor during the course of a hearing. It also must be noted that the Bench was of the firm view 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. We also need to note that the plea before the Delhi High Court was filed by the Director of Prosecution Maqsood Ahmed which had challenged an October 6 Trial Court order in a criminal case arising from a 2002 First Information Report (FIR) that pertained to robbery charges.
It needs to be borne in mind that the Trial Court had imposed a cost of Rs 5000 on the State after no Public Prosecutor appeared to argue despite repeated pass overs. It is also worth paying singular attention that the Trial Court had directed the amount to be recovered from Ahmed’s salary if it remained unpaid within a week and forwarded the order to the Home Secretary for necessary action. It is entirely in order that the Delhi High Court acknowledged the Trial Judge’s frustration but in the same vein also validly questioned holding Ahmed personally liable without specific findings of misconduct.
While striking a pragmatic note, the Bench pointed out that, “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.”
It also deserves to be mentioned that before the Delhi High Court, Ahmed argued vehemently that there was an acute shortage of prosecutors. He also submitted before the Bench 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. While taking note of the robust submissions made, the Delhi High Court deemed it fit to stay the direction to recover the costs from Ahmed’s salary. It, however, refused to stay the costs that had been imposed on the State by the Trial Court.
By any reckoning, the Delhi High Court was absolutely right to express its utmost grave concerns over the lack of steps taken by the State to address the acute shortage of prosecutors. It was observed by the Bench that, “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.” 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.
KEY JUDICIAL ACTIONS
Delhi High Court’s Directives on Prosecutor Shortage
₹5,000
Cost Imposed on State
Trial Court OrderFeb 3, 2027
Next Hearing Date
High Court DirectiveVISUALS BY THE RIFT
CRL.M.A. 33064/2026 & CRL.M.A. 33065/2026 (exemption)
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Girish Kathpalia sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “Allowed, subject to just exception.”
CRL.M.C. 7915/2026 & CRL.M.A. 33242/2026 (stay)
To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 2 of this pragmatic judgment that, “The petitioner, posted as Director of Prosecution, Tis Hazari, Delhi has assailed order dated 06.10.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, whereby cost of Rs.5,000/- was imposed against the State, to be recovered subsequently from salary of the petitioner. The reason for imposition of cost was that despite repeated passovers till 11:30am, no public prosecutor appeared before the learned Additional Sessions Judge.”
As it turned out, the Bench enunciates in para 3 that, “Learned senior counsel for petitioner submits that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, despite having been informed about the acute shortage of public prosecutors and additional prosecutors, imposed such cost to be recovered from salary of the petitioner. It is also submitted by learned senior counsel that the issue of shortage of public prosecutors is already pending before the Division Bench of this court.”
Most candidly and most forthrightly, the Bench propounds in para 4 of this concise judgment holding that, “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.”
It is worth noting that the Bench hastens to add in para 5 of this remarkable judgment noting that, “Therefore, operation of the impugned order to the extent of recovery of the cost from the petitioner till next date is stayed.”
Most significantly, most remarkably, most commendably and so also most rationally, the Bench encapsulates in para 6 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that, “Learned senior counsel for petitioner presses for stay on operation of the complete impugned order including the cost imposed against the State. It is submitted by him that since a number of public prosecutors were on leave, appropriate action could not be done by the petitioner. Firstly, learned senior counsel has appeared for petitioner and not for the State. Secondly, 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. 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.”
It is also worth noting that the Bench notes in para 7 of this brilliant judgment that, “Learned APP assisted by IO/SI Ankit accepts notice and seeks and is allowed to file detailed reply/status report at least one week before the next date.”
Finally, the Bench then concludes by directing and holding in para 8 that, “Relist on 03.02.2027 in Advance List.”
In a nutshell, the Delhi High Court just like a doctor has caught the right pulse in this meticulous judgment and has most commendably lamented the severe shortage of prosecutors that most severely impacts the criminal trials in courts from progressing ahead and reaching its logical conclusion leaving much to be desired. It thus definitely merits no overstating that the State of Delhi needs to immediately address it on a war footing as has been desired by the Delhi High Court and appoint more prosecutors most promptly so that the shortage can be filled up completely. Of course, it must be most forcefully underscored and it is undoubtedly a no-brainer that this brooks no more delay any longer now and needs to be urgently completed at the earliest.
Disclaimer:The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Rift.
