HCLSC Says Using Empanelled Advocates Names' On Causelist Poses Challenges In Tracking Cases, Gujarat High Court Assures Resolution

Advocate Nirad Buch emphasised the need for a resolution and pointed out that the application filing process required the Court to directly register cases without displaying the Legal Services Committee's name in the cause list. Instead, applications were being filed against the names of individual advocates. Advocate Buch clarified that the Committee's role was to coordinate between the advocate and the litigant after a matter was entrusted to a panel advocate, making it unnecessary to display the Committee's name in the Vakalatnama.

The Chief Justice asked the counsel to point out the difficulties they were facing due to this issue. 

Advocate Buch explained that the core issue revolved around the absence of a separate court number for the Legal Services Committee, making it challenging for advocates to access the daily cause list efficiently. Additionally, obtaining orders from various courts became problematic when the Committee's name was not displayed.

The Counsel informed that the Committee had its own separate court number which made it easier for them to access the daily cause list without relying on emails. 

"The difficulty is not initially what used to happen. I may just point out the cause list. I have taken out from this very day. There were around 36 matters listed on board. So, what used to happen is that the Legal Services Committee had its own separate court number. So, it was easier for us to get the cause list on a day-to-day basis, not through email. The orders which are being passed by the different honourable courts are not also received if the name is shown. … Initially, what used to happen is that there used to be a separate name,” he added.

Chief Justice Agarwal suggested a solution where the term "amicus" could be added in brackets next to the advocate's name to indicate the Legal Services Committee's involvement. However, Advocate Buch expressed concerns that empanelled advocates often handled private matters independently, and having the Committee's name in the cause list simplified daily case management.

The Chief Justice thus suggested,

“So, it is difficult for you to monitor the progress of the cases which are filed through the Legal Services Committee. Or which are assigned to the advocates by the Legal Services Committee. Now, you can get the progress of the matter by carrying the list of the advocates through the advocates.”

However, the counsel contended,

“The difficulty would be that, say, for example, this very case, there were 36 cases listed before different honourable courts. Those matters would be adjourned to different states. Some of the matters could have been disposed of, and some of the matters could have been adjourned. But then, it now becomes difficult for us to keep track on a day-to-day basis.”

The Chief Justice acknowledged that if the advocate does not inform the Committee, it remains unaware and that now since only the advocate's name is mentioned, it could be challenging to track the case.

The Chief Justice further suggested that the lawyers could inform in advance about the cases listed for the next day and what had occurred in those cases, along with the upcoming date.

The counsel then raised the difficulty of tracking cases, given the large number of advocates on the committee, around 164 in total.

The Chief Justice responded by saying,

“So, we will work out something. … Generally, the name of the legal services committee is not shown in the cause list. It is nowhere. The lawyers who are appointed as amicus, against their name, amicus is sometimes mentioned. Somewhere. Or sometimes also it is not mentioned there. Right. But so far as your problem about tracking of those cases is concerned, let us have something, some discussion on the administrative side, if it is possible. Without recalling this already. If something can be done. So, let us work it out.”

She also stressed the importance of monitoring these cases, as sometimes lawyers may not appear at all, and it's essential to ensure their appearance and track the cases effectively.

“And monitoring of these cases is also necessary. Otherwise, sometimes lawyers don't appear at all. That is right. And you cannot track whether the lawyers appeared or not. So, that monitoring is also necessary. … Very important. So, that is what we need to work upon. Because just giving them does not absolve your responsibility. Rather, your responsibility increases. So, monitoring is very, very much important.” 

The counsel responded,

“Now, what happens is that since the committee's name is not shown, we will have to see that a particular matter is listed before which honourable court at which serial number. So, that we will have to track.” 

The Chief Justice assured the petitioners that they would work on a solution. She suggested that they could provide a code to these cases where Legal Services Authority councils are appearing, with one code for the category of cases. The Committee's code would not be present, but this solution would help in monitoring the cases more efficiently.

“The only one code should be there. Not the code of the High Court Legal Services Committee. But code for the category of cases. Not for your court. You cannot act as a lawyer. You can only act rightly so that you are an authority who appoints lawyers. So, the advocate's code will be there. But your code cannot be there. But we will work out what can be done. Let us have some second thoughts on this issue. Let me talk to the registrar IT. This thing can be worked out. Because I agree with you to the extent that monitoring is very much required.” 

The matter has been scheduled for further consideration on the 27th of October.

Appearance: Mr Nirad D Buch, Mr. Jainish P Shah

Case Title: Gujarat High Court Legal Services Committee vs. Kamal Kumar Shukla Western Railway & Ors

Case No.: Civil Application For Leave To Appeal No. 1175 Of 2023 In R/Mca/1607/2023