Delhi HC directs govt to finalise proposal of specialised training academy for prosecutors

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has directed the state government to finalise its proposal regarding the establishment of a specialised training academy for public prosecutors within four weeks.

The high court also asked the Delhi government to file an affidavit outlining the steps taken for it.

A bench of then Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma (now elevated to the Supreme Court) and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela reiterated that public prosecutors shoulder weighty responsibilities in the discharge of their duties.

'Accordingly, the Delhi government is directed to finalise its proposal qua the establishment of a specialised training academy for public prosecutor(s) within 4 weeks from today, that is November 1, and file an affidavit outlining the steps taken in furtherance of the same before the next date of hearing,' the bench said while listing the matter for further hearing on December 6.

The court also granted a further two weeks to the Delhi government to comply with its earlier order of September 14 by which the authorities were directed to impart training to the newly appointed public prosecutors in coordination with the Delhi Judicial Academy as prosecutors are an integral part of the criminal court system.

The high court was hearing a batch of petitions, including a suo motu case (a matter initiated on its own), concerning issues related to recruitment, appointment and working of public prosecutors in the city.

The PILs have also sought upward revision in the pay scales of prosecutors and to equip them with the facilities and infrastructure needed to do their job.

Delhi government standing counsel Santosh Kumar Tripathi and lawyer Arun Panwar submitted that the newly appointed public prosecutors have been provided with adequate training at the Delhi Judicial Academy and that a proposal for a specialised academy is pending consideration with the Delhi government.

Senior advocate Rajeev K Virmani, who was appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the court in the matter, submitted that the training was provided by the Delhi government on an ad-hoc basis.

He reiterated the need for a structured training programme for the newly appointed public prosecutors.

Earlier, the high court had directed the Delhi government to coordinate with the Delhi Judicial Academy to conduct training of the 60 newly recruited public prosecutors.

It had said that a public prosecutor is positioned as a representative of the sovereign, whose interest is not to secure a conviction but rather to facilitate the administration of justice, and in doing so the prosecutor must act in a fair and impartial manner within the framework of the law and independent of undue influence by investigating agencies and the executive.

On the issue of recruitment of prosecutors, the high court had earlier asked the Delhi government and Union Public Service Commission to ensure that the process of recruitment of prosecutors in courts is concluded expeditiously.

Delhi Prosecutors Welfare Association was represented by advocates Ashish Dixit and Kushal Kumar.

A contempt petition filed by the Delhi Prosecutors Welfare Association has alleged 'deliberate and willful disobedience' on the part of the Centre and the city government in complying with the court's earlier order.

In 2009, the high court initiated a petition on its own on the poor condition of the prosecutors here.

The court was also informed that one of the causes for the delay in the disposal of the cases with regard to undertrials was the shortage of prosecutors as well as infrastructure facilities and supporting staff for them.