Delhi HC Stays Recovery of Costs From Director of Prosecution Salary

The Delhi High Court stayed a trial court's order to recover costs from the Director of Prosecution's salary, noting the lack of evidence for malfeasance and highlighting the ongoing critical shortage of public prosecutors in the capital.

High Court Intervention on Salary Recovery

The Delhi High Court has stayed a trial court’s direction to recover Rs 5,000 in costs from the salary of Delhi’s Director of Prosecution, Maqsood Ahmed, observing that imposing personal financial liability in the absence of any specific finding of malfeasance or misfeasance would prima facie not be proper. At the same time, the High Court expressed concern over the continuing shortage of public prosecutors in Delhi, observing that the problem had become “perennial” and was severely affecting the disposal of criminal trials and bail matters.

Justice Girish Kathpalia passed the interim order on October 27 while hearing Ahmed’s challenge to an October 6 order of an Additional Sessions Judge at Tis Hazari Courts, which had imposed Rs 5,000 in costs on the State after no public prosecutor appeared despite repeated passovers until 11.30 am. The trial court had directed that the amount be recovered from Ahmed’s salary.

Legal Reasoning and Judicial Observations

Staying the recovery from Ahmed’s salary until the next hearing, Justice Kathpalia observed that the trial judge’s order reflected the pressure faced by courts dealing with overflowing dockets and expectations of expeditious disposal of bail matters and trials. “The impugned order is a conspicuous expression of anguish of the trial judge,” the High Court observed, while holding that the direction for recovery of costs from the Director’s salary, in the absence of a specific observation regarding malfeasance or misfeasance, would prima facie not be proper.

Shortage of Public Prosecutors

Ahmed’s counsel, senior advocate Ramesh Gupta, argued that the trial court had been informed about the acute shortage of public prosecutors and additional public prosecutors. He also pointed out that the issue of shortage of prosecutors was already pending before a Division Bench of the High Court. The High Court, however, declined to stay the entire trial court order, including the imposition of costs on the State.

Justice Kathpalia noted that Ahmed’s counsel was appearing for the Director and not for the State, which had not challenged the trial court’s order. The court further observed that the shortage of prosecutors was not a new problem and that there was nothing before it to demonstrate that the State had taken serious steps to address the issue. “Shortage of prosecutors has become a perennial problem, which severely impacts the disposals of criminal trials and even bail matters,” the court said.

The State accepted notice through its counsel, who was permitted to file a detailed reply and status report at least one week before the next hearing. The matter has been listed for further hearing on February 3, 2027. (ANI)

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by Asianetnews Editorial staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)