"Adverse Remarks Prejudicial To My Reputation": Former UP AAG Jyoti Sikka Moves Allahabad HC Challenging Single Judge Order
Former Additional Advocate General, Uttar Pradesh Jyoti Sikka has moved the Allahabad High Court challenging an order of the Single Judge (of March 2, 2022) alleging that in the order, adverse remarks were made against her which were capable of having professional repercussions for her.For the uninitiated, the Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh had taken an exception to Sikka's failure to...
Former Additional Advocate General, Uttar Pradesh Jyoti Sikka has moved the Allahabad High Court challenging an order of the Single Judge (of March 2, 2022) alleging that in the order, adverse remarks were made against her which were capable of having professional repercussions for her.
For the uninitiated, the Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh had taken an exception to Sikka's failure to seek the permission of the Court before leaving the Court premises on March 2 and for her failure to appear in a matter (the entire controversy and the order of the Court has been explained below).
Now, the matter and this appeal by Sikka assumes significance as the Uttar Pradesh Government last week canceled her engagement as the Additional Advocate General with immediate effect.
It is widely believed that the UP Government's action was a result of the 'adverse remarks' made in the order regarding Sikka, however, LiveLaw doesn't claim that the two incidents are connected to each other.
Now, terming such remarks as adverse and prejudicial to her reputation, Sikka has moved a special appeal seeking to set aside the March 2, 2022 order of the Single Judge in WRIT - C No. - 6208 of 2021 [U.P. Forest Dept. Thru. Prabhagiya Van Adhikari Lko. And Anr. v. Mrs. Harcharan Kaur Gill And Others].
Before going ahead, it is important to take note of the remarks made in the order and the surrounding circumstances, the same has been explained below:
It may be noted that on March 2, 2022, the bench was dealing with the aforementioned case, wherein Standing Counsel for the State, Amit Sharma, had put in an appearance in a case on behalf of the petitioner-State.
Sharma informed the Bench that Jyoti Sikka, the Additional Advocate General would appear in the matter and the matter should be taken up in the revised call as she was busy in some other Court, however, he couldn't apprise the court of the court where she was arguing.
The Court then decided to take up the matter in the revised call, however, when the case was taken up in the revised call, the AAG was still not present and the Court was told by Sharma that she had left the Court as she had some urgent work.
Pursuant to this, observing that Sharma had the courage to tell a complete lie in the Court, the Court had further remarked thus:
"It is very painful to note that Ms. Jyoti Sikka has no courtesy to come and seek the permission of the Court for leaving the Court premises despite having accepted the case and, the case was kept to be taken up in the revised call. This Court does not approve the conduct of Mr. Amit Sharma, Standing Counsel and Ms. Jyoti Sikka, Additional Advocate General of the State...Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the Principal Secretary (Law) and the Additional Chief Secretary, U.P. Forest Department for information and necessary action."
Read more about the matter here: UP Govt Discontinues Engagement Of An Add'l Advocate General Who Was Recently Reproved By High Court For Her 'Conduct'
Sikka's appeal and averments
In her special appeal moved through Senior Advocate LP Mishra, Sikka has stated that the adverse remarks are not only capable of visiting adverse civil consequences to the appellant, but virtually having so visited, is also capable of having very serious and adverse repercussions on her professional career.
Stressing that the remarks were made without affording her any opportunity of hearing, Sikka's appeal further avers thus:
"The adverse remarks so made, as aforesaid, are totally uncalled for and are dehors to a judicious approach on the part of a Court much less a Constitutional Court. An Advocate, a State Law Officer, being no exception, is no doubt an Officer of the Court and a friend of the Court as well, as it relates to offering of assistance to the Court in the process of impartation of justice but in no case is a subordinate or a domestic servant to a presiding officer of a Court so as to require the permission of the court for his/her every movement in life."
Further, giving out the details of the cases in which she was engaged at the relevant point of time when she was asked to appear before the Court of the Single Judge, Sikka has submitted that on the relevant date, only a request for grant of some time for making substitution application on behalf of the State/writ petitioner was to be made and the presence of the AAG was not at all required.
The plea moved by her also states that at the relevant point of time, she had to leave the court premises due to a medical emergency and even otherwise, she contends in her plea, there was no occasion for the Single Judge to insist upon her presence before him.
"In the functioning of this Hon'ble Court there is neither any recognized nor any prescribed procedure for taking permission of the Court' by interfering the proceedings of the Court for the purpose of seeking any permission in case of a Counsel is not in a position to appear on the case to be called out during course of the day. The observation made to the otherwise effect, therefore, is wholly unwarranted and uncalled for apart suffering from the vice of being non-judicious on one hand and from nonapplication of mind on the other hand," the plea further submits while seeking to set aside the impugned order of the single judge
Case title - Jyoti Sikka v. State of UP