The Delhi High Court on Tuesday said that shortage of public prosecutors to conduct criminal trials was a serious issue affecting the timely disposal of cases in the national capital.

“A perennial shortage of prosecutors who can conduct trials is impacting not just the disposal of trials but even bail matters. This is not a new problem,” the Delhi High Court said.

“The shortage of prosecutors has become a perennial problem, which severely impacts the disposal of criminal trials and even bail matters.” observed Justice Girish Kathpalia.

The observation came after the High Court was hearing a plea seeking to quash an order of a trial court imposing a cost of ₹5,000 on Delhi’s Director of Prosecution for not being able to appoint a prosecutor during a scheduled hearing.

Staying the trial court’s direction to recover ₹5,000 as costs from the salary of Delhi’s Director of Prosecution Maqsood Ahmed, the Delhi High Court noted that although it could understand the trial court’s anguish over avoidable delays in criminal proceedings across the board, directing the Director of Prosecution to pay costs personally, when no specific finding of misconduct had been made against him, may not be proper.

Ahmed filed a plea challenging an order of a trial court passed on October 6 while dealing with a criminal case arising out of an FIR dated April 2002 for robbery. After passing an order of ₹5000 cost on the State for no public prosecutor turning up despite repeated passovers, the trial court directed that “if the costs are not deposited within a week, the concerned Principal Director of Prosecution, i.e. Maqsood Ahmed may permit to recover the amount from my salary and also forwarded a copy of this order to the Secretary, Home Department for taking action against the petitioner.”

The Delhi High Court observed,

“The impugned order seems to be a conspicuous expression of anguish of the learned trial judge, who no doubt faces pressure of overflowing dockets as also the 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 on his part would prima facie not be proper.”

Delhi’s Director of Prosecution before the High Court in his plea submitted that there was an acute shortage of prosecutors and mentioned that the regular assistant public prosecutor had been granted leave since September 21 and he has not even been heard before passing the salary- recovery direction.

“It is not disputed that there has been a serious shortage of prosecutors.” noted the Court

The Delhi High Court took note of Ahmed’s submissions and stayed the trial court’s direction to recover ₹5000 costs from his salary while proceeding with the matter.

The High Court refused to put a stay on the imposition of costs on the State.

“The prosecutor general apprises me that no steps have been taken on account of the order. There is nothing before me to show any serious steps being taken by the State. Rather, the State has not even challenged the said order. Therefore, I am not inclined to stay imposition of cost on the State.” added the Court.

It allowed the State to file a detailed reply/status report at least a week before the next date of hearing.

The next hearing has been posted on February 3, 2027.

Senior Advocate Ramesh Gupta and advocate Hemant Gupta appeared for the petitioner.

On behalf of the State, Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Manjeet Arya appeared.