Today(5th September),The Calcutta High Court, led by Chief Justice T S Sivagnanam, has criticized the West Bengal government for not sending lawyers to non-political cases despite prior instructions. This rebuke occurred during a hearing of a PIL on tiger attack victims in the Sunderbans.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
KOLKATA: Today(5th September), The Calcutta High Court has voiced its strong displeasure over the absence of West Bengal government lawyers in cases that do not hold political significance. The court, led by Chief Justice T S Sivagnanam, expressed frustration at the state’s failure to send legal representatives to proceedings, even after previous instructions to ensure their presence. This criticism comes as the court was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) concerning victims of tiger attacks in the Sunderbans.
Chief Justice Raises Concerns Over Lawyer Absences
During Today’s hearing, Chief Justice Sivagnanam made it clear that he was troubled by the state’s approach to legal representation in non-political cases. The Chief Justice highlighted the inconsistency in the attendance of government lawyers, particularly when the issues at hand do not involve political sensitivity.
He sternly remarked-
“Unless something is politically sensitive, no government counsel is promptly attending to the matters.”
The Chief Justice did not hesitate to question the internal processes by which government lawyers are assigned to cases. He noted the irregularities, calling the situation “very saddening.” In his remarks, he pointed out the burden this creates for the court, particularly for the Chief Justice’s bench, and expressed concern over the broader implications for other courts.
“If this occurs in Court No. 1 (the Chief Justice’s court), one can only imagine the situation in the other courts.”
-Chief Justice Sivagnanam said, emphasizing how the absence of government legal representation was affecting the entire court system.
ALSO READ:“Dishonest Litigants Hijacking System is Unfortunate, Court Time is Very Valuable”: Cal HC
Failure to Follow Court Instructions
The division bench, also comprising Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, expressed regret that despite the court’s prior instructions, there was no representation from the state in the matter. The court recalled its earlier order, passed on May 9, in which it had directed the petitioner to notify the state’s legal department. This was to ensure that a government lawyer would be present to make appropriate submissions on behalf of the state, given the sensitive nature of the PIL. Despite this directive, no government lawyer appeared in court on the specified date.
The absence of legal counsel was particularly frustrating given the severity of the issue at hand. The PIL deals with the plight of victims of tiger attacks in the Sunderbans, a matter that the court had deemed sensitive enough to warrant prompt government attention.
Apology from Government Representative
Mohammed Ghalib, a government advocate who was present in the courtroom but not directly involved in the PIL, issued an unconditional apology on behalf of the state for the absence of representation. Ghalib assured the court that he would convey the court’s concerns to the government pleader’s office and ensure that corrective measures are taken moving forward. He expressed his regret for the inconvenience caused to the court.
In response, the court reiterated the importance of having government legal representatives in every matter, particularly in cases of public interest. The bench emphasized that prompt and proper legal representation is a fundamental aspect of the judicial process, and the state’s continued failure to ensure this was deeply concerning.
Repeated Failures in Representation
This was not the first instance where the court had expressed dissatisfaction with the state’s legal representation. On a prior occasion in April, senior lawyers had appeared on behalf of the state for the same matter. However, since then, the state’s representation has been irregular, culminating in Thursday’s absence of any legal counsel from the government.
The court underscored the importance of consistency in legal representation from the state, particularly in public interest cases that affect vulnerable communities, such as those living in the Sunderbans, who face regular threats from wildlife like tigers.
The court has scheduled a follow-up hearing for September 26.
