The Delhi High Court has sought a response from the Delhi government on a public interest litigation questioning the decision to allow a portion of Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) positions to be filled through deputation and short-term contractual appointments.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia issued notice to the government and directed it to file its response within two weeks. The matter is scheduled to come up for hearing again on November 4.
The challenge concerns a notification issued on April 2, 2026, under which APP posts are to be filled through two routes — 85% by promotion and the remaining 15% through deputation or contractual engagement.
The petitioner, Advocate Shipra Mishra, has questioned the legality of the 15% quota, arguing that it does not conform to Section 18(6) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
The provision, according to the petition, requires Public Prosecutors and APPs to be appointed from the regular prosecuting officers’ cadre wherever such a cadre exists. Appointment from outside the cadre is contemplated only where suitable officers are not available.
The plea contends that Delhi already has an established prosecutorial cadre with officers eligible for appointment as APPs. It further argues that the April notification does not demonstrate that suitable candidates from within that cadre were unavailable.
According to the petitioner, permitting deputationists and contractual appointees to enter through the 15% channel effectively creates an alternative route into the prosecutorial service.
The petition also questions the use of short-term contractual appointments, alleging that such arrangements could be used to bypass the statutory framework under the BNSS.
It further raises concerns over the induction of prosecutors from outside the regular cadre, arguing that unfamiliarity with Delhi’s court procedures and local prosecutorial practices could affect the efficiency of criminal proceedings.
The petitioner has also alleged that the notification is arbitrary and violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
The Delhi government has yet to file its response to the allegations before the High Court.
The petitioner was represented by Dr Hemant Gupta, Rony John and Akash Aggarwal. The Delhi government appeared through Avnish Ahlawat, Tania Ahlawat, Nitesh Kumar Singh, Aliza Alam and Mohnish Sehrawat.