The Delhi High Court has highlighted the need for additional judicial appointments to handle cases under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA). The Court observed that appointing only one Special Court per Sessions Division creates administrative difficulties.
Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha made these observations while dismissing appeals filed by two women who challenged denial of default bail in a MCOCA case. The prosecution had also invoked provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The matter is titled Deepa Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi) and other connected case.
Structural Concern In Existing Framework
While rejecting the appeals on merits, the Court examined the present judicial structure for MCOCA cases in Delhi. It recorded that Delhi has 11 Sessions Divisions. However, only one court in each division functions as a Special Court under MCOCA.
Referring to Section 5(3) of MCOCA, the Court noted that a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge qualifies for appointment as a Special Court Judge. The statute also contemplates appointment of additional judges to address practical requirements.
Difficulty When Sole Judge Is Unavailable
Justice Sudha observed that serious difficulties arise when only one judge handles the Special Court in a Sessions Division. If that judge goes on leave or becomes unavailable, work allocation becomes problematic.
The Court pointed out that Sub-section (5) of Section 5 of MCOCA cannot operate effectively in such a situation. The designated Special Court Judge cannot distribute the business to any other member of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service. Nor can the judge transfer work to a Sessions Judge or Additional Sessions Judge appointed under Section 9(2) or (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure or Section 8(2) or (3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
The Bench raised a direct question: what course remains open if the sole Special Court Judge in a Sessions Division proceeds on leave?
Suggestion For Administrative Action
The Court noted that the Legislature had foreseen such contingencies. Section 5(3) of MCOCA provides for appointment of additional judges.
Accordingly, Justice Sudha observed that appointing additional judges to the existing Special Courts would be ideal. Alternatively, the High Court could empower more officers, if not all members of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service, to deal with MCOCA offences.
The Court clarified that the State Government must take such a decision in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court. It further observed that the High Court, on the administrative side, may consider the feasibility of appointing additional judges or expanding jurisdiction to more judicial officers.
Finally, the Court directed that the order be placed before the Chief Justice for consideration on the administrative side. The appeals were dismissed on merits.
