The Delhi High Court, recently, in a Suo-Motu Petition, upon noticing that 60 public prosecutors had been appointed without receiving any training, directed the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) to collaborate with the Delhi Judicial Academy to ensure the training of these newly recruited public prosecutors.

The Bench, comprising Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula, was apprised by the Amicus Curiae, Rajeev K. Virmani, regarding the absence of a training program for Public Prosecutors. It was highlighted that 60 public prosecutors had been recently appointed, but alarmingly, they had not received any training.

Highlighting that the post of ‘Public Prosecutor’ is an integral part of the criminal court system, the Court observed, "The Hon’ble Supreme Court has on numerous occasions highlighted the import of the post, specifically highlighting it uniqueness vis-à-vis a counsel for a complainant or another ordinary party to a controversy."

Continuing the Court observed 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 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."

The Bench further directed that given the distinct role played by the Public Prosecutors, it becomes imperative that the appointees are adequately equipped to shoulder the weighty responsibilities the post carries. Accordingly, the Court ordered GNCTD to coordinate with the Delhi Judicial Academy to conduct training of the newly recruited public prosecutors.

The Court also asked the GNCTD to file a status report before the next date of hearing regarding (i) the implementation of direction regarding training programs, and (ii) the latest position of vacancies in respect of public prosecutors.

The Court will now consider the matter next on November 1, 2023.

Cause Title: Court On Its Own Motion v. State [W.P.(CRL) 1549/2009]

Click here to read/download the Order