Challenges in Assam's Prosecution System Highlighted in High Court

The Gauhati High Court has raised concerns about the delays in the prosecution process in Assam, citing a lack of cooperation from existing public prosecutors as they are being replaced by newly appointed ones. With over 200 new prosecutors set to undergo training, the court is seeking solutions to address the backlog of criminal cases, some of which have been pending since 2003. The Director of Prosecution has identified several factors contributing to these delays, prompting the court to propose a structured approach to manage and expedite the resolution of these cases. The next hearing will involve insights from the Advocate General.

By Narendra Chaudhary Mar 8, 2026, 09:05 IST

Stalemate in Prosecution Efforts

Guwahati, March 8: The Gauhati High Court was informed by Makhan Phukan, the Director of Prosecution, about significant challenges in expediting prosecutions. He indicated that the current public prosecutors, who are being phased out in favor of newly appointed ones, are not providing the necessary cooperation.

This statement was made during a session of the designated court for MPs and MLAs, presided over by Justice Devashis Baruah and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury.

Phukan noted that over 200 new public prosecutors, additional public prosecutors, and assistant public prosecutors have recently been appointed. These individuals are set to undergo a six-month training program at the Assam Judicial Academy.

He expressed concern that the existing public prosecutors are hindering the prosecution process due to their impending replacement, leading to a stagnation in achieving timely justice.

The court has requested the Advocate General's insights for the upcoming hearing.

Previously, the designated court expressed disappointment regarding the extensive backlog of criminal cases within Assam's district judiciary, with some cases dating back to 2003.

The court had asked the Director of Prosecution to devise a strategy to accelerate the resolution of these cases.

Phukan had previously identified six key factors contributing to these delays: frequent absences of witnesses, unserved summons, processes returned unexecuted, delays from case transfers and reassignments, lack of sanction orders, and frequent adjournments by the accused legislators, along with delays in obtaining forensic reports.

During a hearing on March 5, the court suggested that to effectively manage and expedite the resolution of older cases, two distinct lists should be created: one for cases pending since 2016 and another for those filed from 2017 onwards.