The Supreme Court of India expressed concern over shortage of public prosecutors nationwide, urging States to fill vacancies immediately, while observing that inadequate prosecutorial infrastructure delays criminal trials and often compels courts to grant bail due to prolonged incarceration and delayed trial completion.
The Supreme Court of India expressed serious concern over the shortage of public prosecutors across courts in the country and urged State governments to immediately fill vacant posts to address delays in the criminal justice system. The Bench observed that delays in criminal trials were often caused by inadequate prosecutorial infrastructure, leading courts to grant bail on the ground of prolonged incarceration and inevitable delay in conclusion of trial.
A Bench comprising Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan observed that one of the major reasons for the slow pace of criminal trials was the inadequate number of prosecutors available to conduct cases before courts. The observations were made during the hearing of a bail plea filed by an accused arrested under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.
Factual Backgrounds:
The Court was hearing an appeal filed by Dolubhai Vihabhai Gohil challenging a Gujarat High Court order refusing him bail. The appellant had been arrested on March 4, 2023, in a case registered under Sections 8(b), 8(c) and 18(c) of the NDPS Act. The prosecution alleged that 141 kilograms of opium had been recovered from a field where the accused was allegedly cultivating opium.
During the hearing, counsel for the appellant argued that although the offences carried a maximum punishment of ten years’ imprisonment, the accused had already spent more than three years and two months in custody. It was also pointed out that the prosecution proposed to examine 46 witnesses, but only six witnesses had been examined so far, indicating that the trial was likely to take considerable time to conclude.
The State of Gujarat had opposed the bail plea by relying upon the Supreme Court’s earlier judgment in Union of India v. Vigin K. Varghese, arguing that long incarceration by itself could not be a ground for granting bail in NDPS cases.
Accepting the State’s submission earlier, the Gujarat High Court had refused bail, observing that delay in trial alone was insufficient to justify release. However, the Supreme Court ultimately took note of the slow pace of trial and the period already spent in custody while granting relief to the appellant. Taking note of the prolonged incarceration and slow progress of the trial, the Supreme Court granted bail to the appellant.
Observations of the Court:
During the proceedings, the Bench questioned the repeated claims made by governments regarding delays in criminal justice delivery while failing to strengthen the prosecution machinery responsible for conducting criminal trials.
The Bench remarked,
”The States are not doing anything and simply saying ‘delay in criminal justice, delay in criminal justice’. Where does the problem lie?.”
The Court pointed out that several States have failed to conduct timely recruitment examinations for prosecutors despite the availability of eligible candidates awaiting appointment.
The Bench observed,
”Why is the Directorate of Prosecution in each state not attending to all this? You are not conducting the prosecution exams on time. There are people waiting to be appointed,”
The judges emphasised that merely acknowledging delays in the justice delivery system would not solve the problem unless governments took concrete administrative steps to strengthen prosecution departments and ensure adequate staffing in courts.
The Bench further observed that the judiciary could recommend reforms and measures to improve the prosecution system, but implementation ultimately rested with the executive authorities.
Justice Nagarathna said during the hearing,
”You ask us, we will give you the suggestions. Will you implement it? That is the point. Please, all of you State Counsels, advise your governments to appoint prosecutors, PPs in court halls,”
She said,
“See, at least appoint prosecutors. For each district and sessions court hall, not court, court hall. Each presiding officer must have an exclusive prosecutor. Now that prosecutor should not come from another district on only certain days, and only on those days you have sessions trials. What is all this?,”
The Court also urged State counsels appearing before it to communicate the concerns raised by the Bench to their respective governments, law ministers, advocate generals and directors of prosecution.
Justice Nagarathna further remarked,
”All of you appearing as State Counsel, please bring it to the Law Minister, Advocate General, Director of Prosecution and in the summer holidays, please use this time for all this, you see effective suggestions to be implemented,”
Justice Nagarathna remarked,
“Even if trial timetable is made, the prosecutor cannot come and open the case on that day and therefore this contention that the trial will be inevitably delayed, grant bail. Then they’ll abscond. What happens to the trial? Somebody must examine all this and implement it”,
The Bench further noted that strengthening the judicial system required not only increasing the number of courts and judges but also ensuring adequate prosecutorial staffing for every court hall.
Justice Nagarathna observed,
“The Bar also must think of some way with regard to expeditious conclusion of trial. One of the ways is to have more courts, more courts, more judges. Prosecutor for each court must be separate, not for several court halls, only one prosecutor. This is the reason for delay”,
Justice Ujjal Bhuyan also pointed to the lack of budgetary allocation for construction of court infrastructure and criticised the practice of assigning prosecutors to multiple districts and courts.
Justice Nagarathna further observed during the proceedings,
“You can’t have a prosecutor coming from another district to a district or from another place, location to this location only on two days in a week and on those days sessions trial will be conducted. This can’t happen”,
The Supreme Court’s observations come amid continuing concerns over pendency of criminal cases across courts in India. Judicial delays have repeatedly been linked to shortage of judges, inadequate court infrastructure and insufficient prosecution staff, particularly in trial courts where criminal matters are conducted on a daily basis.
Public prosecutors play a crucial role in criminal proceedings by representing the State in prosecutions, conducting trials, presenting evidence and assisting courts in ensuring fair adjudication. Vacancies in prosecution departments often lead to adjournments and slower disposal of criminal cases, particularly in serious offences involving special statutes such as the NDPS Act.
The Bench ultimately proceeded to grant bail to the accused in the case while reiterating the need for State governments to urgently strengthen the prosecution system to ensure effective and timely criminal justice administration across the country.
Case Title: Dolubhai Vihabhai Gohil v. State of Gujarat.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE