The court emphasized the limitations of issuing mandates for judicial functions and highlighted the need for discretion in regulating proceedings.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, filed as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), seeks the reliefs of, (i) a direction to this Court to “follow the mandatory direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anil Rai regarding passing of the judgments/orders within two months of the hearing” etc. (ii) a direction to this Court to “follow the model case law system as stated in the Salem Advocate Bar Association case”; (iii) a direction to this Court to “speed up the hearings of the PIL, people in jail and bail matters”; (iv) a direction to this Court as well as the Trial Courts to “follow the good old practice of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in recording the actual time (not just duration) for which a matter has been heard on a particular occasion in every daily order and put every order on internet”; and, (v) a direction to “the State and the Government to provide for adequate structure in the form of Prosecutors, Standing Counsels, sufficient manpower in the Legal Department”.

2. The petition was listed for admission on 22nd January, 2014, 29th January, 2014, 17th February, 2014 when no order, neither admitting the petition nor issuing notice thereof was issued. On 18th February, 2014, the counsel for the respondents no.2&3 i.e. Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) appearing on advance notice was asked to take instructions with respect to Prayer (v) i.e. of a direction to the Government to provide adequate infrastructure in the form of Prosecutors, Standing Counsels, sufficient manpower in the Legal Department etc.

3. In response to the above, GNCTD has filed an affidavit inter alia stating:-

(i) That according to the duties assigned to the Prosecutors in Directorate of Prosecution, the Assistant Public Prosecutors defend the State before the Metropolitan Magistrate Courts and the Additional Public Prosecutors defend the State before the Sessions Court; that the Chief Prosecutors are in charge of the Districts and supervise the Assistant Public Prosecutors and Additional Public Prosecutors and overall legal issues of their respective District; that the Director (Prosecution) being Head of the Department is overall in charge of the Prosecution Wing;

(ii) That this Court has been monitoring the shortage of Public Prosecutors vide W.P.(Crl.) No.1549/2009 titled Court on its own motion Vs. State, NCT of Delhi and has issued a number of directions to fill up all the vacant posts of Prosecutors; in compliance therewith all possible steps have been taken to meet the shortage of Public Prosecutors so that the justice delivery system does not suffer; various steps taken / being taken including for increasing the strength of the Public Prosecutors, filling up the vacancies, training of the Public Prosecutors, provision of library for the Public Prosecutors, providing modes for safe keeping of files, making available seating space within the Court rooms / office block with online search engines, internet facility, stationery, facility of printing, photocopying for the Public Prosecutors and facilitating transport etc. of the Public Prosecutors have been elaborated.

4. Though as aforesaid, neither the petition was admitted nor notice thereof was issued and the GNCTD was only asked to take instructions with respect to prayer (v) only but when the matter came up on 21st July, 2014, the counsel for the respondent no.1 i.e. this Court was asked to obtain instructions qua the prayer of the petitioner for recording of time of hearing in each order sheet. After perusing the affidavit aforesaid of the GNCTD, they were directed to re-examine the issue of pay scales of the Public Prosecutors.

5. In response to the above, the counsel for this Court on 15th October, 2014 stated that there cannot be any in-principle objection to recording in the order sheet of the time taken by each counsel in every case listed before the Court. It was however further stated that where the c