The Supreme Court declined to hear a plea seeking removal of a High Court judge’s husband from the post of Standing Counsel in Uttar Pradesh. CJI Surya Kant stressed that such matters should be handled administratively and cautioned against naming or targeting individuals.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear an appeal that challenged an earlier order of the Allahabad High Court, which had declined to remove the Standing Counsel (Law Officer) of the Government of Uttar Pradesh from his post.
The case relates to the appointment of Sandeep Chandra, husband of Justice Sangeeta Chandra of the Allahabad High Court, as Standing Counsel for the State government.
Earlier in May, the Allahabad High Court had dismissed a petition which sought his removal, claiming that his continuation in the role was illegal because his wife holds the position of a High Court Judge.
The petitioner had argued that this situation created a conflict of interest and violated the rules governing the appointment of Law Officers in the State.
When the matter came up before the Supreme Court, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant made it clear that the issue should not be personalised or sensationalised.
He stated,
“There are some issues to be handled on the administrative side. Please do not name anyone or target anyone”.
Following this observation, the counsel appearing in the case requested permission to withdraw the petition, which was allowed by the Court.
Before the Allahabad High Court, the petitioner had also sought directions to cancel any renewal of Sandeep Chandra’s appointment by summoning official letters related to his original appointment and subsequent renewals.
Additionally, the plea demanded that the State Government recover public money paid to him on the ground that he had allegedly held the post illegally due to his marital relationship with a sitting High Court Judge.
In the alternative, the petition sought recovery of the same money from the government officers responsible for approving his appointment and renewals, along with strict action against them for allegedly ignoring the disqualification.
The petitioner had further submitted that the concerned advocate was not eligible to be appointed as Standing Counsel under Clause (4) of Appendix B of the general instructions relating to the appointment and tenure of Law Officers in the High Court, as mentioned in paragraph 5.02 of the Legal Remembrancer’s Manual.
According to the plea, the Uttar Pradesh Government failed to consider these provisions while engaging him.
However, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the petition and strongly criticised the language used by the petitioner. The Court observed that the allegations made were inappropriate and disrespectful, and went to the extent of scandalising the judicial office.
In its order, the High Court said,
“A writ petition drafted by a Lawyer especially one who is appearing in person and has 30 years practice behind him should not contain such intemperate language as has been used herein. We pointed out this fact to the petitioner towards the end of the arguments and he stated that he will keep this in mind in future, but, what about the fodder he has supplied for rumour mongers in the corridors and outside it, by making such averments. He should ponder over it seriously, introspect as to whether he is utilizing his intellectual capacity in the right direction. What purpose is sought to be served by making such averments, without any basis? We say no more in the solemn hope that the petitioner will introspect, take corrective measures and shall utilize his legal acumen and intellect for achieving higher goals”.
With the Supreme Court declining to entertain the matter and the petition being withdrawn, the legal challenge to the appointment of the Standing Counsel has effectively come to an end.
The Court’s remarks underline the importance of maintaining dignity in legal pleadings and avoiding personal targeting of individuals, especially when issues can be resolved through proper administrative channels.
Click Here To Read More Reports on Ex-CJI BR Gavai
