Delhi HC Issues Notice Over 15% APP Deputation Quota Plea
The Delhi High Court has issued a notice to the Delhi government regarding a plea challenging the 15% deputation quota for Additional Public Prosecutors.
The Delhi High Court has stepped into a legal battle regarding the recruitment process for Additional Public Prosecutors (APPs) in the national capital. A Division Bench, consisting of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia, has issued a formal notice to the Delhi government following a petition that challenges a specific provision in the appointment rules.
The controversy centers on a Delhi Gazette Notification dated April 2, 2026, which outlines the recruitment structure for APPs. Under this notification, 85 per cent of these positions are to be filled through promotion, while the remaining 15 per cent are reserved for deputation or short-term contractual engagement.
The Legal Challenge: BNSS Violations Alleged
The petitioner, Shipra Mishra, has raised serious concerns regarding the legality of this 15 per cent quota. Represented by advocates Dr. Hemant Gupta, Rony John, and Akash Aggarwal, the petitioner argues that this provision directly contradicts Section 18(6) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
According to the legal arguments presented, Section 18(6) mandates that Public Prosecutors or Additional Public Prosecutors must be appointed from the regular cadre of prosecuting officers, provided such a cadre exists. The petition highlights several critical points:
- Existing Cadre: Delhi already possesses an established cadre of prosecuting officers, including Assistant Public Prosecutors who are eligible for promotion.
- Unauthorized Channels: The plea questions the legitimacy of creating a separate channel for deputation or short-term contracts when a regular cadre is already in place.
- Constitutional Rights: The petitioner contends that this provision violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, as it negatively impacts the promotional opportunities and service rights of existing officers.
Allegations of Procedural Irregularities
Beyond the statutory contradictions, the petition alleges a lack of transparency in how these rules were finalized. It is claimed that the draft recruitment rules originally circulated for consultation did not include the 15 per cent deputation provision. The petitioner alleges that this specific clause was surreptitiously incorporated into the final notification after the initial consultation phase.
The petitioner is seeking to have the April 2 notification quashed to the extent that it allows for the 15 per cent deputation/contractual engagement. Furthermore, the plea asks the court to direct the Delhi government to re-notify the recruitment rules so they align strictly with Section 18(6) of the BNSS.
What Happens Next?
While the High Court has not yet expressed an opinion on the merits of the case, it has set a strict timeline for the legal proceedings. The Delhi government, represented by a legal team including Avnish Ahlawat, Tania Ahlawat, Nitesh Kumar Singh, Aliza Alam, and Mohnish Sehrawat, has been directed to file an affidavit in reply within two weeks.
Once the government responds, the petitioner will be granted an additional two weeks to file a rejoinder, if necessary. Crucially, the court has scheduled the next hearing for November 4, 2026, at which time the court will also hear the petitioner's application seeking a stay on the controversial notification.