The missing link in criminal justice: Why India needs more prosecutors, not just more policemen

Celebrities and celebrity cases get the maximum media coverage. In the Siya Goyal case, the police came under criticism for conducting an extended "fishing enquiry" without having conclusive direct evidence to prove a pre-planned murder. Whenever a crime shocks the nation, the first institution blamed is the police. The media raise questions about the investigation, manpower allotted, the response time of cops and law-and-order failures.

India does suffer from a chronic shortage of police personnel. The country has 153 police officers per 100,000 citizens, while the UN-recommended benchmark is 222 officers per 100,000. Drowned in the high decibels of public outrage is the severe bottleneck which is inevitably ignored: Prosecution. After an FIR is lodged, the delay afterwards takes up to weeks. This reflects a criminal justice system in which the police are expected to deliver convictions while the machinery required to convert investigations into successful prosecutions is dangerously understaffed.

According to the Bureau of Police Research and Development (BPR&D), India’s sanctioned state police strength of 26.23 lakh personnel fares poorly against its actual strength of 20.91 lakh. There are more than 5.31 lakh vacancies: about one in every five sanctioned police posts are vacant. The capital city is an exception. It has a relatively high police density compared to other cities, but even after the sanctioned strength of Delhi Police being over 83,700, Parliament was informed in 2025 that more than 9,200 posts in the force are vacant.

But the larger problem is not police numbers. A police officer’s job is to investigate the case, collect the evidence, record statements of witnesses and file the charge sheet. After that, the success or failure of the case goes out of his hands. It is up to the prosecutor and the court to take matters forward. In this overloaded system, justice is denied because of justice being delayed.

The crisis haunts the subordinate judiciary and prosecution services the most. For example, in Noida-NCR, more than 300 fresh criminal cases reach courts every day, but only three prosecution officers are available to handle them. The consequence: adjournments, delayed arguments, overworked prosecutors, all of which prolong the trials.

Panchkula district courts have reported shortages of deputy district attorneys and assistant district attorneys severe enough to force junior prosecutors to appear in courts beyond their designated jurisdiction. Prosecutors there have complained of handling multiple courts simultaneously, adversely affecting preparedness and trial quality in the dismal backdrop of India’s massive judicial backlog. The National Judicial Data Grid currently records more than 3.8 crore pending criminal cases in district and subordinate courts alone. Total pendency across district courts exceeds 5 crore cases. Every month, millions of new cases are instituted while millions are disposed of, but the overall backlog remains enormous.

Delhi is a notable example to consider regarding how prosecution and court capacity influence outcomes. In POCSO cases, Delhi achieved the rare feat in 2025 of disposing more cases than were newly registered. Yet, more than 3,500 cases remained pending and over 2,000 had already been awaiting resolution for six to ten years. Experts reportedly blame shortages in specialised courts and supporting infrastructure as major reasons for continuing delays.

The public often assumes that acquittals reflect poor police investigation. Sometimes it is right. But experienced judges, prosecutors and investigators know that criminal justice has its own paradox: a weak investigation can ruin a prosecution while an excellent investigation fails if prosecutors are unable to prepare witnesses, oppose bail effectively, present evidence coherently or respond promptly to defence tactics. When a single prosecutor is pursuing hundreds of matters across multiple courts, quality suffers.

This burden has grown heavier after the implementation of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and related criminal law reforms. The new legal framework places greater emphasis on timelines, forensic evidence, digital records and procedural compliance. These reforms require more specialised prosecutors capable of handling increasingly complex criminal litigation.

The irony is that governments often announce recruitment drives for constables while neglecting prosecution cadres. A police vacancy is visible because it affects street policing. A prosecutor vacancy is invisible because it manifests as adjournments, delayed witness examinations and declining conviction rates years later. The solution is not simply to hire more prosecutors. It is to redesign prosecution as a professional service.

First, every state should undertake a scientific workload assessment linking the number of prosecutors to case inflow rather than historical sanction strength. If 300 new cases arrive daily in a district, staffing should reflect reality rather than outdated administrative norms.

Second, prosecution services should be separated institutionally from routine administrative control to be developed into specialised career tracks with training in forensics, cybercrime, financial crime and victim management.

Third, police investigators and prosecutors must collaborate from the earliest stages of serious criminal cases. In many advanced jurisdictions, prosecutors do guide investigations before charge sheets are filed, reducing evidentiary defects that later lead to acquittals.

Fourth, states should create dedicated prosecution units for crimes against women, organised crime, cyber offences and juvenile crime, mirroring the specialised courts now emerging in several jurisdictions. Delhi’s recent decision to establish dedicated fast-track courts for UAPA and organised crime cases reflects this direction of travel.

Fifth, technology must be integrated across the entire chain. Digital case files, AI-assisted document management, electronic evidence presentation and witness scheduling systems can dramatically improve productivity without compromising fairness.

Finally, policymakers must stop treating pendency as a purely judicial problem. Courts do not function in isolation. Every pending criminal case represents a chain consisting of police, forensic laboratories, prosecutors, defence lawyers and judges. Weakness in any one link cripples the entire system.

There is no doubt India needs more police officers. The vacancy of over five lakh police personnel is real and urgent. But recruitment alone will not deliver justice. A criminal justice system cannot arrest its way out of pendency. It must prosecute its way out of it. Until India strengthens the forgotten middle layer between police stations and courtrooms, the headlines will continue to blame the police for failures that are often rooted in an overburdened prosecution system and a subordinate judiciary struggling under the weight of millions of unresolved cases. The real crisis is not merely who catches the criminal. It is who takes the case to its conclusion.