Impression Created That State Lawyers Have Collectively 'Turned Against Court': Allahabad HC Asks Principal Law Secretary To Appear

The Allahabad High Court on Thursday (March 20) has directed the Principal Secretary (Law)/ L.R. to appear before the court after noting that an impression was being created that State lawyers seemed to have collectively turned against the Court.

The court said it was not observing the conduct of a few state panel members but was expressing its concern at some of the lawyers taking the lead in naming others leading to creation of such an impression. 

Justice Manju Rani Chauhan in her order observed, "This Court, in its previous order, acknowledged the challenges faced by government officials while approaching the office of the Government Advocate or Chief Standing Counsel for filing affidavits. The learned Government Advocate has been unable to provide any explanation regarding this issue, nor has he clarified what efforts have been undertaken by him to enhance efficiency and bring improvements to his office in this regard". 

"This Court is not merely observing the conduct of a few State panel members but is concerned that some are taking the lead in naming others, creating an impression that they have collectively turned against the Court. This situation is troubling the Court. Therefore, the Principal Secretary (Law)/ L.R., is directed to be present before this Court on the next date, to oversee the matter and report the same to the Hon'ble Law Minister, U.P," it added. 

The case pertained to summons issued in a case for quashing of chargesheet. However, the Additional Government Advocate present before the Court could not tell the status of service of summons. Since there was no report on the status of summons, the court had directed the Superintendent of Police, Fatehpur to be present before the Court and explain the reasons as to why the orders of the Court were not being complied with.

The Court had noted that earlier in Vijay Kushwaha and 3 others v. State of U.P. and another, the Court had called for affidavit of the Superintendent of Police to explain the reason for unwarranted delays. Finding his reply unsatisfactory, the court summoned the Government Advocate for clarification. However, the Court noted their unawareness of the previous orders passed by the Court.

In the previous hearing the Court had noted that the Private Secretary had made changes to the affidavit filed by the Government Advocate on behalf of the Superintendent of Police. Noting that there was propriety was disregarded in the Government Advocate's office, the Court directed the Government Advocate to file a better affidavit.

Subsequently, a fresh affidavit was filed by the Superintendent of Police, Fatehpur on which the Court praised his honesty, integrity and forthrightness in recognizing and addressing the shortcomings of the initial compliance report and giving a detailed report.

“Furthermore, the officer's conduct reflects an extraordinary sense of professional responsibility and fearlessness in executing his duties. By bringing to light the concerns regarding hesitation in the independent functioning of the authority, he has not merely complied with judicial orders but has also strengthened the very fabric of institutional integrity. His actions exemplify the rare quality of courage—wherein adherence to righteousness prevails over any undue influences or apprehensions, ensuring that the sanctity of the judicial process remains unblemished,” the court had observed in its earlier order. 

The court had however pointed to the lack of "diligence and accountability" in the office of Government Advocate in carrying out their duties.

“Instead of extending the necessary legal support and facilitating compliance with judicial directives, the office has consistently placed the concerned police and administrative officials in difficult positions, leaving them to navigate complex legal and procedural challenges without adequate assistance. This evasive approach not only hinders the smooth execution of judicial orders but also raises serious concerns about the office's commitment to upholding the principles of justice and due process,” the court had said in its earlier order.

Meanwhile, a recall application was filed by the State on the earlier order passed by the Court. When the application was heard yesterday, 4 Additional Advocate, 2 Chief Standing Counsels along with all other State panel lawyers were present in court “to defend” the Government Advocate.

On Thursday, it observed that though the AAG had tendered an apology for Government Advocate's conduct on an earlier occasion, and the Court had indicated that the matter should not be unnecessarily exaggerated as it was a minor issue, it however was displeased with the conduct of the Government advocate which it said was attempting to justify the actions of his private secretary.

The court noted that the government advocate was also trying to defend the improper functioning of his office to which, as it seemed he neither managed it effectively nor took measures to improve it as yet.

The Court on Thursday noted that though the State panel lawyers were present again to apologise, one of the Chief Standing Counsels took the lead in naming State panel lawyers present before the Court.

Thereafter though a request was made to take up the matters in chambers, the court refused to do the same and continued the proceedings in open Court noting that the misconduct by the Government Advocate had happened in open Court.

"Furthermore, several past incidents were not documented in previous orders. If such had been the case, all concerned had ample opportunity to approach the chambers and express their grievances," it said. 

Noting that the observations in the order were not directed against any individual but were made in order to express concern at the negligence on the part of the Government Advocate which it said is hindering the effective functioning of the Court, it directed the case to be placed on March 27.