‘Publicity Interest Litigation’: Delhi High Court Dismisses PIL Against Union Govt's Procedure For Empanelment Of Lawyers

Calling it a “publicity interest litigation”, the Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea challenging the method of empanelment of advocates to represent the Union Government.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad rejected the public interest litigation moved by Advocate Rajinder Nischal.

It was the lawyer’s case that the size of the panel to represent the Government of India is not fixed and that the Union Government does not invite applications for appointment or renewal of the panel.

He contended that the appointment of Advocates as Union Government counsel is contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Brijeshwar Singh Chahal.

Dismissing the PIL, the bench noted that the petitioner lawyer was himself an empanelled Government lawyer and that even at the time of his empanelment, there was neither any fixed panel of lawyers to represent Government of India nor was he subjected to any written examination before his appointment.

“The Lawyers empanelled by the Government of India are paid their fee on a case to case basis. As stated earlier, the Petitioner herein has himself been a beneficiary of the process which he is now challenging in the present petition. The judgment of the Apex Court will definitely apply to those States where monthly salary or a retainer fee is paid to the Law Officers and it will not apply to a case where lawyers are being empanelled and are paid on a case to case basis,” the court said.

The bench also observed that the petitioner lawyer had filed the PIL after being a beneficiary of the same process which was challenged by him only because he was denied extension or reappointment.

“A litigant can always choose a lawyer to represent him and the Government of India, which is one of the largest litigant in the country, has the freedom to appoint its own lawyers. This Court is of the view that the present petition is nothing but a Publicity Interest Litigation,” the court said.

It added that the “attractive brand name” of PIL should not be used for “suspicious products of mischief” and should be aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury.

“Courts must be careful to see that a member of public who approaches the Court is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private motive or political motivation or other oblique consideration. This Court is of the view that no public interest is involved in the present petition and it has been filed only to upset the apple cart,” the court ordered.

Title: RAJINDER NISCHAL v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 548

Click Here To Read Order