Delhi HC Stays Cost Recovery From Prosecution Director, Slams 'Perennial' Prosecutor Shortage
Delhi High Court stops recovery of costs from Prosecution Director's salary and flags the perennial shortage of public prosecutors in the city.
The Delhi High Court has intervened to stay a trial court's order that sought to recover a fine from the personal salary of the Director of Prosecution, Maqsood Ahmed. While providing relief to the official, the court used the opportunity to highlight a systemic crisis: the chronic and "perennial" shortage of public prosecutors in Delhi, which is crippling the judicial process.
The Dispute: A Fine for Absence
The legal battle began following an order issued on October 6 by an Additional Sessions Judge at the Tis Hazari Courts. During a hearing, no public prosecutor appeared to represent the State, despite the court granting multiple passovers until 11:30 am. Frustrated by the delay, the trial court imposed a cost of Rs 5,000 on the State.
However, the trial court took a step further by directing that this amount be recovered directly from the salary of the Director of Prosecution, Maqsood Ahmed.
High Court's Intervention
Justice Girish Kathpalia, while hearing Ahmed's challenge to the order, stayed the recovery from the Director's salary. The court observed that imposing personal financial liability on an official without a specific finding of "malfeasance or misfeasance" would not be proper prima facie.
Justice Kathpalia noted that the trial judge's decision was a "conspicuous expression of anguish," reflecting the immense pressure faced by lower courts dealing with overflowing dockets and the urgent need to dispose of bail matters and criminal trials expeditiously.
Key Observations by the Court:
- Personal Liability: The court held that costs cannot be recovered from an individual's salary unless there is proof of misconduct.
- State Responsibility: While the recovery from Ahmed was stayed, the court declined to stay the imposition of costs on the State, as the State itself had not challenged the order.
A Systemic Failure: The Prosecutor Crisis
During the proceedings, senior advocate Ramesh Gupta, representing the Director, argued that the trial court had already been informed about the acute shortage of public prosecutors and additional public prosecutors. He further mentioned that this systemic issue is already pending before a Division Bench of the High Court.
The High Court expressed deep concern over this situation, stating that the shortage of prosecutors is not a new phenomenon but has become a "perennial problem." The court emphasized that this vacuum severely impacts the disposal of criminal trials and even critical bail matters, delaying justice for litigants.
Justice Kathpalia remarked that there was no evidence before the court to suggest that the State had taken any serious steps to resolve this ongoing crisis.
What Happens Next?
The State has accepted notice of the proceedings through its counsel. The court has permitted the State to file a detailed reply and a status report regarding the shortage of prosecutors, which must be submitted at least one week before the next hearing.
The matter is now scheduled for further hearing on February 3, 2027.