Haryana to recall 285 law officers from deputation within a week; High Court flags 'acute shortage' crippling district courts
Bench says trained law officers cannot continue in non-court assignments when judicial functioning is being affected across districts
Addressing the chronic shortage of prosecutors in district courts, the Punjab and Haryana High Court on Friday directed the State of Haryana to terminate the deputation of 285 law officers working in various departments and repost them to courts within a week after observing that the criminal justice system was “reeling under acute shortage” leading to delays in trials.
The Court also sought a comprehensive reconciliation affidavit detailing the exact sanction strength, present incumbency, vacancies and steps taken to fill up posts across district judiciary and prosecution services.
Examining the affidavit placed by the State, the Bench—among other things—took note of the diversion of trained law officers to non-court work. The court asserted, “The district courts are reeling under the acute shortage of law officers—district attorneys, deputy district attorneys, and assistant district attorneys, which is leading to obstruction in the due process of law, and, therefore, the cases and trials are delayed.”
Taking a firm view, the Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry issued a writ of mandamus directing the State to “terminate the deputation of all the 285 district attorneys, deputy district attorneys, and assistant district attorneys posted on deputation to departments, boards, and corporations and post them within a period of one week to undergo court work in different districts…”
Recording the factual position emerging from the affidavit, the Court noted that a significant number—out of the sanctioned cadre strength of 644 law officers—were either not available for court work due to deputation or were deployed outside judicial functioning. The Court observed that a large number of officers were being used for non-court assignments, despite pressing requirements in trial courts.
The Court held that the deputations, as such, could not be permitted to continue at the cost of judicial functioning. The State, during hearing, attempted to justify the existing deployment pattern and indicated the ongoing recruitment processes and advertisements for filling posts. However, the Court stressed that such explanations could not substitute for immediate manpower correction in courts, particularly when vacancies and diversion of officers were affecting day-to-day judicial work.
The matter has now been adjourned for the State to filed another affidavit specifying the total sanctioned strength across all cadres, the present incumbency, the exact vacancies district-wise, and action taken to fill posts.
