Why Delhi High Court wants more judges to handle organised crime cases immediately

The court dismissed their appeals.

Finding no infirmity in the trial court’s order dated December 18, 2025, the Delhi High Court dismissed both criminal appeals and closed pending applications. (Image enhanced using AI)

More judges needed

• It would certainly be ideal if additional Judge(s) are appointed to the special court or a few officers, if not, all the members of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service, are empowered to deal with offences under the MCOCA.
• When there is only one judge appointed to the special court, difficulties in work arrangement would certainly arise when the said judge goes on leave or otherwise.
• The legislature has foreseen this situation and has provided for appointment of additional judges under Section 5(3) of MCOCA.
• This would no doubt be a decision that will have to to be taken by the state government in consultation with the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of this Court.
• It would do well for the high court on the administrative side to consider the feasibility of appointing additional judge(s) to the special court already constituted or conferring the power to deal with offences under MCOCA to more members of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service.
• This order may be placed before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of this Court for considering the matter.

Administrative directions, concerns

• While dismissing the appeals, the court expressed concern that despite judicial observations made as far back as 2017 pointing out defects in a 2010 notification regarding conferment of powers on special courts, no corrective action had been taken in nearly nine years.
• The court suggested that the high court, on its administrative side, consider appointing additional judges to special courts under Section 5(3) of MCOCA.
• Empowering more members of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service to deal with MCOCA offences.
• A copy of the judgment has been directed to be placed before the Chief Justice for appropriate consideration.

Appeals dismissed

• Finding no infirmity in the trial court’s order dated December 18, 2025, the high court dismissed both criminal appeals and closed pending applications.
• The ruling not only settles the immediate question of default bail in this case but also throws light on the structural and administrative challenges in the functioning of special courts under stringent laws like MCOCA.

De facto doctrine also applies

• The court further held that even if one were to assume some irregularity in the extension order, the de facto doctrine grounded in necessity and public policy would prevent the custody from being treated as unlawful.
• Therefore, the appellants were not entitled to default bail.

Background: Arrest, 90-day deadline

• The appellants were arrested on September 12, 2025 in a case registered at Sultanpuri police station for offences under the NDPS Act, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Drugs and Cosmetics Act, and Sections 3 and 4 of MCOCA .
• Under Section 21(2)(b) of MCOCA, the prosecution must complete the investigation within 90 days, failing which the accused becomes entitled to statutory or “default” bail.
• The period in this case was set to expire on December 11, 2025.
• On December 10, 2025, the prosecution moved an application seeking extension of time.
• As the designated special judge was on leave, the matter was placed before the link judge under a notified roster.
• The link judge granted a 14-day extension to complete the investigation.
• Subsequently, on December 18, 2025, the special judge dismissed the accused persons’ plea for default bail, holding that the extension granted by the link judge was valid.
• Accused challenge jurisdiction of link judge
• Before the high court, the appellants argued that only a special court constituted under Section 5 of MCOCA has jurisdiction to extend custody or the period of investigation.
• They contended that MCOCA overrides the general criminal procedure law.
• The link judge had not been appointed as a special judge under Section 5(3) of MCOCA.
• Any internal arrangement of the judiciary could not defeat their statutory right to default bail.
• They relied on judicial precedents to argue that jurisdiction is a matter of legislative mandate and cannot be conferred by administrative practice .
• The appellants maintained that their detention beyond December 11, 2025 was illegal and without authority of law.

Prosecution: No judicial vacuum can be allowed

• The state countered that the link judge acted under a valid roster arrangement and was a member of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service, thus meeting the eligibility requirement under MCOCA.
• The prosecution argued that judicial work cannot come to a halt merely because the presiding officer of a special court is on leave.
• It also pointed to earlier high court observations emphasising the need for link court arrangements to prevent paralysis in special enactment cases.