The Allahabad High Court expressed serious concern over lack of proper assistance from government lawyers due to staff shortage and delay in instructions. The Court warned that making courts wait for files and instructions amounts to interference in the administration of justice and increases case pendency.
The Allahabad High Court has recently expressed serious concern over the poor assistance being provided by the lawyers from the State Government panel, particularly from the office of the Advocate General-cum-State Law Officer. The Court said that due to lack of proper assistance and delay in receiving instructions from government authorities, court proceedings are getting delayed and this is affecting the justice delivery system.
The observations were made by a Division Bench of Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Devendra Singh-I while hearing a case related to recovery proceedings under the U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963. The issue before the Court was that recovery proceedings were initiated without issuing any show cause notice, and the State counsel repeatedly failed to produce instructions despite being given multiple opportunities by the Court.
ALSO READ: Abetment of Suicide Case Against Judge: Govt Lawyer Found Dead in Maharashtra Court
On the first date of hearing, the Court granted time to the Standing Counsel representing the State Government to obtain instructions. On the next date, the counsel again requested more time to obtain instructions, after which the Court granted two weeks’ time and warned that strict action would be taken if instructions were not produced.
However, even on the third date of hearing, the counsel informed the Court that instructions had still not been received. When the Court indicated that it may summon the District Magistrate, the counsel stated that instructions had been received on WhatsApp but could not be printed in time.
Taking serious note of the situation, the Court observed,
“We are seriously concerned with the present situation in the Establishment of the Advocate General-cum-State Law Officer for the reason that working of the Office has reduced to such a level that proper assistance is not being rendered to the Courts leading to delay in justice.”
The Court also acknowledged the reason given by the counsel but expressed concern over the repeated delays by government authorities in sending instructions to the Standing Counsel. The Court noted that such delays are becoming common and are affecting court proceedings.
The Court observed,
“While we may find it to be justified reason not to summon the officer concerned but we have been noticing recently that in a number of cases that despite several reminders made by the Standing Counsel of the Court to the authorities, the authorities have not been responding in time.”
During the hearing, the Court was informed that one of the reasons for delay and lack of proper assistance was the shortage of Class III and Class IV employees in the office of the Advocate General. The Court said that it is not concerned with the internal administrative issues between the State Government and the Advocate General’s office, but the Court cannot be made to wait due to such issues.
The Court made strong observations and stated,
“We do not know the modalities that have to be adopted either by the State Government or by the Advocate General, but we certain do not appreciate the way the office of the Advocate General is working. If there is any shortage of staff and the recruitment is not taking place for a long period of time, then it is either the Government to be blamed or the office of the Advocate General but in no circumstance the Court can be forced to wait for instructions and for the proper assistance from Standing Counsel it amounts to interference in the administration of justice and this ultimately leads to further add on the pendency.”
The Court further noted that the process of staff recruitment was started only after the Court had passed an order in another bail matter. The Court expressed disappointment over this and observed,
“It is unfortunate that when this Court intervened that exercise for recruitment was taken by the Advocate General. Be it Government or Advocate General, if for shortage of staff or for any other inconvenience State Law Officer/ Additional Advocate General fails in making proper arrangement of files by providing enough place and for its upkeep and resultantly the Court is not able to hear the matters for want of proper assistance, it amounts to interference in the administration of justice.”
The Court had earlier directed the State Government to inform the Court about the steps being taken to fill the vacant posts in the office. However, on the next date of hearing, when instructions were finally placed before the Court, the Court expressed dissatisfaction and said that it was unhappy that the Advocate General had not replied to the State Government regarding vacancies and was also not present before the Court.
Even the Additional Advocate General was unable to inform the Court about the exact number of vacancies or whether any advertisement had been issued for recruitment.
Considering the seriousness of the issue, the Court directed that the U.P. Subordinate Services Selection Commission, Lucknow be made a party to the case and asked it to inform the Court about the status of the recruitment process for the vacant posts in the Advocate General’s office.
The case will now be listed for further hearing on 17.04.2026. The Court made it clear that lack of staff, poor file management, and delay in providing instructions to the Court cannot be accepted as excuses, as this ultimately affects the administration of justice and increases pendency of cases.
Case Title:
Subedar Yadav v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 4 Others
Click Here to Read More On Govt Lawyers
