Supreme Court Flags Shortage Of Public Prosecutors, Says It Causes Delays In Trials

The Supreme Court today highlighted the shortage of public prosecutors across courts as a major reason for delays in criminal trials, and urged the state government to appoint at least one prosecutor in each courtroom of a sessions court.

“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?,” she said.

Justice Nagarathna further said that States routinely complain about delays in criminal justice but fail to address issues such as shortage of prosecutors by filling prosecutor vacancies.

“States are not doing anything and simply saying 'delay in criminal justice, delay in criminal justice'…Where does the problem lie? Why the Directorate of Prosecution in each state is not attending to all this? You are not conducting the prosecution exams on time. There are people waiting to be appointed…The states must give their attention to all this. We see they make statements, 'there is delay, delay, delay in criminal justice dispensation in the country.' Where does the problem come from?”, she said.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan made these remarks while granting bail to an accused booked under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), who had spent more than three years in custody.

The Court granted bail to the appellant, who was arrested on March 4, 2023, in a case registered under Sections 8(b), 8(c) and 18(c) of the NDPS Act, noting that the offences carry a maximum punishment of ten years' imprisonment.

The Court noted that the appellant had remained in custody for three years and two months. Counsel for the appellant contended that the prosecution proposed to examine 46 witnesses, of whom only six had been examined so far, and thus, the trial would inevitably be delayed. Accepting this contention, the Court granted bail.

After passing the order, Justice Nagarathna observed that shortage of prosecutors is a contributor to delay, allowing the accused to get bail due to “inevitable delay”, and then abscond. Justice Nagarathna observed that even where courts prepare trial schedules, cases cannot proceed if prosecutors are unavailable.

“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”, she said.

“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”, she observed.

Justice Ujjal Bhuyan added that there was often no budgetary allocation for construction of courts.

She criticised the practice of prosecutors being required to travel from one district to another and conducting sessions trials only on limited days.

“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”, Justice Nagarathna remarked.

Addressing the State counsel present in court, she stressed that the judiciary could suggest measures but implementation rested with governments.

“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.

She added that larger States with higher crime rates required greater attention to prosecutorial staffing and urged State counsel to take up the issue with the Law Minister, Advocate General and Director of Prosecution.

“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.”

The appeal arose from a Gujarat High Court order refusing bail to the accused. The prosecution has alleged that 141 kilograms of opium was seized from the appellant's field where he was allegedly cultivating opium.

The State had opposed bail relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Vigin K. Varghese, contending that the period of incarceration alone could not justify release on bail.

Accepting that submission, the High Court had held that delay in trial could not be a ground for bail in the facts of the case.

Case no. – Crl.A. No. 2764/2026

Case Title – Dolubhai Vihabhai Gohil v. State of Gujarat