The Supreme Court issued a directive for the retention of panel lawyers for six weeks following a change in government to prevent adjournments.
NEW DELHI: On Monday (1st April): The Supreme Court recommended that States and Union Territories maintain their empaneled government lawyers for a minimum of six weeks after a change in government, instead of replacing them with new lawyers.
READ ALSO: Supreme Court Challenges Lawyer Enrolment Fees
The court expressed concerns that the prevailing practice of replacing panel lawyers after a regime change was causing unnecessary adjournments and inconveniencing both the courts and litigants.
Advocates Aadil Singh Boparai, Sumer Singh Boparai, Gurlabh Singh Bhaika Sidhu, Srishti Khanna, Vaibhav Dabbas, Sidhant Saraswat, Sachin Kumar, and Amarjeet Singh appeared on behalf of the appellant, Sachin Kumar. The State of Uttarakhand was represented by Additional Advocate General Sanjeev Uniyal and advocates Namita Choudhary and Srishti Choudhary.
While recognizing that States and Union Territories have the authority to change their empaneled advocates, the court emphasized the need to ensure that such changes do not adversely affect the functioning of the courts.
“In recent months, the Court has observed a trend where states and union territories alter their panel of advocates in the aftermath of a change in political power. Consequently, the Court is compelled to grant adjournments due to these changes. While states and union territories have the authority to change their empaneled advocates, they must ensure that these changes do not disrupt the functioning of the Court,” stated the Court.
READ ALSO: Allahabad HC unhappy with lawyers’ strike
Hence, the bench recommended that following a regime change, the government’s panel of counsel should remain unchanged for a minimum of six weeks.
“It would be advisable for States/Union Territories to retain the existing panel of advocates for a period of six weeks when making changes, thereby avoiding the need for courts to grant adjournments,” the bench advised.
Background
These observations were made during the hearing of a bail plea by an individual accused of cheating in an examination conducted by the Uttarakhand government. The Uttarakhand High Court had previously denied bail to the accused on December 10, 2023, leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court.
During the proceedings, the Supreme Court summoned the State Law Secretary to explain why the state was seeking adjournments due to changes in the panel of advocates. The state government explained that the panel had been changed after remaining the same for eight years.
READ ALSO: Lawyers’ Union Says Advocates’ Letter to CJI Misleads Public
Regarding the primary appeal, the Court ultimately approved bail for the accused appellant in consideration of the fact that four co-accused individuals had already been granted bail.
“The counter affidavit reveals that a charge sheet has been filed, and charges have been framed. Nineteen prosecution witnesses have been identified. The offenses fall under the jurisdiction of the learned Judicial Magistrate. The appellant has been in custody for over a year and a half. No prior criminal record of the appellant has been presented,” the Court added, granting the appeal.
Case Title: Sachin Kumar vs. State of Uttarakhand
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
