A Division Bench comprising Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Manoj Jain mandated that the government and the Principal District & Sessions Judges of all districts in Delhi provide adequate technological facilities and infrastructure, including office space, to public prosecutors
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court issued several directives to address various concerns of public prosecutors (PPs) in Delhi. A Division Bench comprising Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Manoj Jain mandated that the government and the Principal District & Sessions Judges of all districts in Delhi provide adequate technological facilities and infrastructure, including office space, to public prosecutors.
The Court ordered,
“Principal District & Sessions Judges of all districts of Delhi shall, if not already, provide requisite office space to Public Prosecutors posted in their respective districts. The space for office and creating e-library may be identified and approval be sought from the respective Building Maintenance & Construction Committee (BMCC), High Court of Delhi.”
Regarding the dress allowance, the Court stated,
“This Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that public prosecutors are required to appear in the Court in robes and are required to wear the prescribed robe, including the black coat throughout the year and, therefore, it will be in the fitness of things if they are also granted dress allowance in the same manner. Accordingly, we order that Public Prosecutors be given dress allowance @ ₹10,000 per annum w.e.f. from the date of the present order.”
On the provision for laptops and tablets, the Court noted,
“As of now, Public Prosecutors are getting Rs 80,000 in total for purchasing a laptop and tablet, which amount seems to be quite sufficient for enabling them to do their office work with the help of these technological devices. However, the prescribed life of such technological devices should be the same, i.e., four years instead of five years as has been prescribed for Executive and Judicial Officers.”
The Bench requested the Delhi government to consider providing incentives for PPs to obtain higher qualifications:
“We request GNCTD to consider such requests regarding the grant of incentives, either in lumpsum or by way of three advance increments, and to pass appropriate orders in this regard within six weeks from today. Before passing any order, it would give an opportunity of hearing to DPWA [Delhi Prosecutors Welfare Association].”
The Court instructed that PPs be given appropriate office space, with the approval of the respective Building Maintenance & Construction Committee (BMCC) of the High Court of Delhi. Additionally, it ordered an annual dress allowance of Rs 10,000 for PPs, recognizing the necessity for them to appear in Court in prescribed robes throughout the year.
The Court also noted that while PPs receive Rs 80,000 every five years for laptops and tablets, this amount should instead be provided every four years, aligning with the treatment of similar provisions for Executive and Judicial Officers.
Furthermore, the Bench urged the Delhi government to consider providing incentives for PPs to pursue higher qualifications, suggesting either a lump sum payment or three advance increments, with the requirement to consult the Delhi Prosecutors Welfare Association (DPWA) before making a decision within six weeks.
The Court highlighted the importance of security for prosecutors, who are entitled to a Rs 1.25 lakh allowance for a camp office every five years. It also requested that the government consider additional security measures similar to those provided for other agencies.
Additional directives included:
- Prosecutors should follow the Delhi District Courts’ calendar but adhere to the Delhi government’s calendar during summer vacations until a decision on whether the prosecution department should be treated as a vacation department is made.
- The creation of digital libraries for PPs in each district, equipped with necessary technological infrastructure and subscriptions to e-journals and e-legal software.
- Completion of the ongoing cadre review exercise for prosecutors within six weeks.
The directives apply to prosecutors of the rank of Assistant Public Prosecutors and above. These directions stemmed from a suo motu writ petition regarding delays in filing appeals initiated in 2017. The DPWA later intervened to raise their grievances.
Senior Advocate Ramesh Gupta, along with other advocates, represented the DPWA, while the Delhi government was represented by Additional Standing Counsel Sanjeev Bhandari and other advocates.
Case Title: Court on its own motion v State
