Back
Jammu NDPS Court Warns Prosecution Chiefs of Contempt for Failing to Depute Prosecutor
A has threatened contempt proceedings against the Director General (Prosecution) and Director (Prosecution) after the absence of a Public Prosecutor virtually paralysed the court's functioning, leaving nearly 80 criminal matters unattended and a dozen prosecution witnesses unexamined.
A Court Held Hostage by Administrative Confusion
The stern directive came from Special Judge (NDPS Cases) Parvez Iqbal on , while hearing a case arising out of FIR No. 05/2023 registered under at . The accused, S.K. Shafi and another, have been incarcerated since , and were produced virtually from District Jail, Amphalla, for the day's proceedings.
The court found itself in an untenable position: PW-10, ASI Gurdeep Singh, had travelled all the way from Srinagar to record his deposition, but no prosecutor was present to examine him. A police constable attached to the prosecution informed the court that Special Public Prosecutor had proceeded on four days' leave, and the department had made no alternative arrangement.
The reason offered for this lapse was that the Director General (Prosecution) had allegedly been stripped of the power to assign temporary charge to another prosecutor during leave periods by the .
"Knee-Jerk Reaction" to Communication
When Deputy Director Prosecution (DDP), Jammu, appeared before the court, he produced Communication No. HOME-Pros/21/2026 dated , from the , along with Order No. DG-Pros/Estt/7169527/7722 dated , issued by the Director General (Prosecution) curtailing the powers of the DG's office and all DDPs of Jammu.
After examining both documents, the court concluded that the DG's office had misinterpreted the 's communication entirely. The judge observed that a plain reading of the 's letter—which spoke only of "Transfer, Posting & Appointment" of prosecutors—in no way curtailed the authority to make temporary arrangements during leave periods.
"Bare perusal of both the letters would reveal that DG (Prosecution)'s office has given out-of-context interpretation to the communication of Home Deptt. which in no manner curtails the power of the office of DG (Prosecution) to make temporary arrangement during leave period. It appears to be a knee-jerk reaction to the communication from
,"
the court observed.
The Price of Administrative Paralysis
The court expressed deep concern that a courtroom where the State or Union Territory is a party in virtually every matter had been rendered non-functional by what it described as departmental "whataboutery" and internal power struggles.
"It is totally unacceptable that this Court where in every case, one of the party is State/ UT which is supposed to be represented by Prosecutor as per
, is left high and dry, virtually non-functional merely because one of the Public Prosecutor has proceeded on leave and
is confused about their authority to make alternate arrangement for leave period,"
the judge remarked.
The consequences, the court noted, were stark:
"There are people who are incarcerated in Jail waiting desperately for proceedings in their trial. There are others who are before the Court to seek immediate relief on account of certain exigencies."
Adding to the frustration,
"There are 12 PWs present in the Court today who will ironically go unexamined because of unavailability of the Prosecutor."
The court further observed that judicial proceedings
"cannot be held hostage to administrative whataboutery/jiggling of
or their tiff with
over power sharing."
The Court's Direction
The Special Judge directed the DG (Prosecution) and Director (Prosecution)—who had sanctioned the SPP's leave—to ensure an alternate prosecutor was made available the very next day, failing which contempt proceedings would be initiated.
"DG (Prosecution) and Director (Prosecution) who have sanctioned leave to Mr.
are directed to ensure that an alternate arrangement is made for the leave period and a Prosecutor is made available in the Court tomorrow to conduct prosecution, failing which
proceedings shall be undertaken against them for impeding the Court proceedings and thwarting the daily working of this Court by their acts of omission and commission,"
the order stated.
The court also directed that copies of the order be forwarded to all concerned authorities—including the DG (Prosecution), Director Prosecution and DDP Jammu—through special messenger and email for immediate compliance. The matter has been listed for .
Implications
This order underscores the judiciary's firm stance against administrative negligence that impedes access to justice. It sends a clear signal that internal departmental disputes—however genuine—cannot be allowed to stall criminal trials, particularly those involving under-trial prisoners whose liberty hangs in the balance. The ruling also clarifies that temporary arrangements during a prosecutor's leave fall squarely within the DG (Prosecution)'s authority, notwithstanding any broader administrative restructuring of the department.
Case Title: | FIR No. 05/2023, PS ANTF, Jammu
