Prosecutor shortage costs: the Delhi High Court has stayed recovery of Rs 5,000 in costs from the Director of Prosecution’s salary, but refused to stay the costs on the State, calling the shortage of prosecutors a perennial problem.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on October 27, 2026 stayed, till the next date, a trial court direction to recover Rs 5,000 in costs from the salary of the Director of Prosecution at Tis Hazari, while declining to stay the imposition of the same costs on the State, and observed that shortage of prosecutors “has become a perennial problem, which severely impacts the disposals of criminal trials and even bail matters” [Maqsood Ahmed v. State NCT of Delhi].
Justice Girish Kathpalia passed the order in CRL.M.C. 7915/2026, with CRL.M.A. 33242/2026 seeking a stay. Senior Advocate Ramesh Gupta with Advocate Hemant Gupta appeared for the petitioner, and Additional Public Prosecutor Manjeet Arya, assisted by Investigating Officer Sub-Inspector Ankit, appeared for the State.
How the matter reached the High Court
The petitioner, posted as Director of Prosecution at Tis Hazari, challenged an order of October 6, 2026 passed by an Additional Sessions Judge. The trial court had imposed costs of Rs 5,000 on the State, to be recovered afterwards from the petitioner’s salary, because, despite repeated passovers till 11:30 am, no public prosecutor appeared before it.
The petitioner’s senior counsel submitted that the Additional Sessions Judge had been informed of the acute shortage of public prosecutors and additional prosecutors, yet directed recovery from the petitioner’s salary. He also submitted that the issue of the shortage of public prosecutors is already pending before a Division Bench of the High Court.
The legal position
The vacancies in the prosecution cadre have been before the Delhi High Court for some time. In a suo motu matter, a Division Bench of Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Anish Dayal directed the Delhi Government in July 2025 to take steps within four weeks to fill Additional Public Prosecutor and Assistant Public Prosecutor posts on an ad hoc basis while regular recruitment was pending, and to ensure that one Public Prosecutor is available for each criminal court. The present order does not record what followed in that proceeding.
What the Court said
Justice Kathpalia began by recognising the pressures on the trial judge:
“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.”
The Court accordingly stayed the operation of the impugned order, to the extent of recovery of the costs from the petitioner, till the next date.
The petitioner’s senior counsel also pressed for a stay of the whole order, including the costs on the State, saying that a number of public prosecutors were on leave. The Court declined:
“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.”
The directions
The Additional Public Prosecutor accepted notice and was allowed to file a detailed reply or status report at least one week before the next date. The matter was directed to be relisted on February 3, 2027 in the Advance List.
Why the order matters
The order separates two questions that the trial court’s direction had joined: who pays when a court cannot proceed for want of a prosecutor, and who is responsible for the shortage. The High Court held, prima facie, that an individual officer’s salary cannot be made answerable without a specific finding of malfeasance or misfeasance, but it left the costs on the State in place and pointed to the absence of any serious step by the State. It is an interim order, and the Court has expressed no final view; the State’s status report will show what is being done about the vacancies.
Case Title: Maqsood Ahmed v. State NCT of Delhi [CRL.M.C. 7915/2026 and CRL.M.A. 33242/2026]
Bench: Justice Girish Kathpalia, Delhi High Court
Date of Order: October 27, 2026
Next Date: February 3, 2027 (Advance List); State’s reply or status report at least one week earlier
Appearances: Senior Advocate Ramesh Gupta with Advocate Hemant Gupta for the petitioner; Additional Public Prosecutor Manjeet Arya with SI Ankit for the State.