Delhi High Court Calls for More Judges to Handle MCOCA Cases, Seeks Administrative Action
Court highlights shortage of judicial appointments under Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act
Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha stresses need for additional judges to avoid delays
By Legal Reporter
New Delhi: February 19, 2026:
The Delhi High Court has urged the government and judicial administration to appoint more judges to handle cases under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA), 1999. The court observed that the current system, where only one judge is appointed to the Special Court, creates serious difficulties when that judge is unavailable due to leave or other reasons. This call for reform comes amid rising concerns about delays in organized crime trials, which often involve complex investigations and multiple accused.
Background of the Case
- The issue arose during hearings of MCOCA-related matters in Delhi.
- Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha noted that under Section 5(3) of MCOCA, both a sessions judge and an additional sessions judge are qualified to preside over Special Courts.
- The legislature had already foreseen the possibility of judicial absence and provided for appointment of additional judges, but this provision has not been adequately implemented.
[Suggested Resource]
Legal professionals and students alike will benefit from Will Writing Simplified, which covers procedure and case law in detail. Amazon 📘 Buy "Will Writing Simplified" online: 🔹 Flipkart
Also Read: Credit Score as Social Currency: Why Financial Discipline Matters More Than Ever
Tribunal’s Observations
- The court emphasized that when only one judge is appointed, case management suffers if that judge is unavailable.
- This leads to adjournments, delays in pronouncing judgments, and prolonged detention of accused persons.
- The High Court stressed that administrative action is urgently needed to ensure smooth functioning of Special Courts under MCOCA.
Why This Matters
The ruling has wider implications for the justice system:
- Efficiency in Trials – Organized crime cases often involve multiple accused, complex evidence, and long hearings. Having more judges ensures continuity.
- Protection of Rights – Delays in hearings can affect the constitutional rights of accused persons, including the right to speedy trial.
- Strengthening Rule of Law – Proper judicial appointments reinforce the credibility of courts in tackling organized crime.
Related Developments
- Recently, the Delhi High Court granted bail in another MCOCA case, citing violation of the constitutional requirement to produce an accused before a magistrate within 24 hours.
- In another matter, a Delhi court discharged an accused due to lack of credible evidence of organized crime syndicate membership, showing the sensitivity and complexity of MCOCA trials.
- These cases highlight the need for judicial consistency and adequate manpower to handle the growing number of organized crime prosecutions.
Expert Views
Legal experts believe that the High Court’s observations will push the government to strengthen judicial infrastructure. They argue that organized crime cases require dedicated benches with sufficient judges to ensure timely justice.
Also Read: Rajasthan High Court Surprise Inspection Finds 8 Judges Absent in Jodhpur District Court
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court’s call for more judicial appointments under MCOCA is a timely reminder of the importance of judicial capacity in tackling organized crime. By urging administrative action, the court has placed responsibility on both the judiciary and the government to ensure that justice is not delayed due to procedural shortcomings.
Keywords for SEO & Faster Searches
Also Read: Madras High Court Declares Consideration for Promotion a Fundamental Right
- Delhi High Court MCOCA ruling
- Judicial appointments for organized crime cases
- Section 5(3) MCOCA Delhi High Court
- Organized crime trials India
- Delhi HC calls for administrative action
- Speedy trial rights MCOCA cases
- Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha judgment
Also Read: Supreme Court: All High Courts Are Equal, No Practice of Transferring Matters to One Court