The Gujarat High Court on Friday pulled up the State government over its decision to repeatedly replace the Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) in the high-profile Vadodara custodial death case of Telangana migrant worker Shaikh Babu Nisar, observing that the government’s own actions appeared to be delaying a trial that both the High Court and the Supreme Court had repeatedly directed to be concluded expeditiously.After hearing detailed submissions from the State as well as the victim’s family, Justice M K Thakker deferred the matter till Tuesday to enable the government to take a final call on continuing Bharuch-based advocate S I Ghariya as the Special Public Prosecutor.During the hearing on Friday, the court orally questioned the State’s justification for replacing Ghariya, who has been conducting the prosecution in the long-pending trial since his re-appointment in 2024, during which, he has examined 51 of the total 63 witnesses.“What is the difficulty if he is proceeding?” the court orally asked the State after it argued that earlier prosecutors had failed to conduct the trial at the desired pace, leading to the decision to change the Prosecutor in June.The Court said, “It appears that during his tenure, he examined the maximum number of witnesses. Why are you interrupting the trial? What is your interest with regard to the progress of the trial?”The State defended its decision by contending that prosecutors had been replaced only because the trial was not progressing fast enough despite repeated judicial directions. Referring to earlier proceedings, the state prosecutor argued that Ghariya had initially examined only seven additional witnesses after being reappointed in April 2024 pursuant to the Supreme Court’s direction to complete the trial within one year.According to the State, repeated bail orders granted to some accused highlighted the need to accelerate the proceedings.Story continues below this adHowever, the High Court questioned the factual basis of the State’s argument, pointing out that the record itself reflected substantial progress after Ghariya’s appointment.“Fifty one witnesses have been examined between April 2024 and 2 June 2026, which is less than two years. How can you say there has been no substantial progress? This is not a case where a witness merely comes and goes,” the court orally observed.The court also questioned whether the government had ever attempted to improve the pace of the trial without changing the prosecutor. “You could simply direct the SPP to examine the maximum number of witnesses before the deadline. How many reminders did you send to Mr. Ghariya?” the court asked.When the prosecutor replied that he did not have those details, the court remarked, “Then how can you say the matter was conveyed to him?”Story continues below this adThe court was particularly critical of the government decision to change the prosecutor at an advanced stage of the trial. The Court orally said, “You (state) are wasting the court’s time. Under the guise that this person is not doing the work which is up to the mark, you are delaying the trial.”The court observed that every change of prosecutor inevitably stalls the proceedings because a newly appointed prosecutor must first acquaint himself with the extensive record. “A new SPP would come, he would take a lot of time in understanding the evidence which was examined by the earlier SPP. By all these things you are delaying the trial,” the court said.The State submitted that Ghariya practised from Bharuch and that appointing a Vadodara-based prosecutor would facilitate day-to-day hearings. To this, the court asked if there was any record to show that the hearings had been affected due to his absence– the state, however, did not present any record to the effect. The state also informed the court that advocate Atul Vyas, who had initially been appointed to replace Ghariya, had not taken charge due to personal reasons, following which another prosecutor was proposed.Victim’s family opposes change of SPPThe victim’s family, however, opposed any further change. Counsel Devarsh Pandya, appearing for the petitioner — Nisar’s son, Salim– argued that the prosecution had actually made significant progress under Ghariya after deficiencies left by an earlier prosecutor were rectified.Story continues below this adPandya submitted that after taking charge, Ghariya had furnished a list of 74 documents that had previously been omitted and had also brought on record statements recorded during the preliminary inquiry and the missing person investigation, which had never been included in the prosecution’s document list despite the inquiry having been conducted under the High Court’s supervision.He also disputed the State’s calculations regarding witness examination, contending that 51 witnesses had been examined within about a year after the prosecution was reorganised. The petitioner appealed to the court to retain Ghariya with a strict timeline for completion of the remaining evidence instead of appointing yet another prosecutor.Accepting that suggestion for consideration, the High Court indicated that a time-bound direction could itself address the State’s concerns without disrupting the ongoing trial. At the request of the State, the matter was ultimately adjourned till Tuesday for a final decision on the continuance of the Special Public Prosecutor.The petition arises from the State government’s June 2 decision to discontinue Ghariya as Special Public Prosecutor, which was challenged by Salim Nisar. During earlier hearings, the High Court had expressed concern that repeated changes of prosecutors were undermining, rather than expediting the trial. The court had noted that more than 63 witnesses had already been examined, the record runs to nearly 3,500 pages and only about 25 material witnesses remain, making any fresh appointment likely to further delay the proceedings.2019 caseStory continues below this adThe case relates to the alleged custodial death of 65-year-old Telangana daily wage labourer Shaikh Babu Nisar, who allegedly disappeared after being taken into custody by Vadodara’s Fatehgunj police in December 2019. Acting on a habeas corpus petition filed by his son, the Gujarat High Court directed registration of an FIR, leading to a CID investigation. The CID concluded that Nisar was tortured to death in police custody and that his body was disposed of in a canal, although it has never been recovered. Eight police personnel were chargesheeted in 2020 for offences including murder and destruction of evidence.