Competent lawyers should be appointed to represent govt: SC

Apex court rules else there would be strong possibility of 'miscarriage' of justice

Competent lawyers should be appointed to represent govt: SC
Press Trust of India New Delhi
Last Updated : Nov 29 2015 | 1:39 PM IST
The State should appoint only competent lawyers possessing integrity to represent it or else there is a strong possibility of "miscarriage of justice", the Supreme Court has said.

The apex court though acknowledged the right of states to choose counsel of its choice like any other litigants.

A bench of justices Vikramjit Sen and A M Sapre, while hearing a case on appointment of government lawyers in district courts in Uttar Pradesh, said, "In choosing them (lawyers), the State will not only have to be satisfied of their forensic competence, but also that they are bereft of any criminal antecedents."

"We think that the correct approach is to ensure the competency of advocates being considered for appointment of additional district government counsel, assistant district government counsel, panel lawyers and sub district government counsel. It seems to us that it would be an incorrect approach to start this process by considering the re-appointment or renewal of existing government counsels since that would dilute, nay, dissolve the discretion of the government to appoint advocates whom they find trustworthy," the court said.

"The only expectation is that the choice made by the State should not be such as could defeat the sacred and onerous responsibility of ensuring that the justice is meted out to all citizens," it said.

The apex court was hearing appeals filed against the Allahabad High Court verdict quashing the orders of the state government terminating the appointment of district government counsel. The high court had directed the state government to reconsider their renewal.

The high court, in the impugned order, had quashed the orders of the state government terminating the appointment of district government counsel and had further directed the state to reconsider their renewal.

The apex court agreed with the earlier judgment in which it had said that district counsel did not have a statutory right for renewal of tenure and the state government enjoyed discretionary power in this regard.
*Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times

Smart Quarterly

₹900

3 Months

₹300/Month

SAVE 25%

Smart Essential

₹2,700

1 Year

₹225/Month

SAVE 46%
*Complimentary New York Times access for the 2nd year will be given after 12 months

Super Saver

₹3,900

2 Years

₹162/Month

Subscribe

Renews automatically, cancel anytime

Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans

Exclusive premium stories online

  • Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors

Complimentary Access to The New York Times

  • News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic

Business Standard Epaper

  • Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share

Curated Newsletters

  • Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox

Market Analysis & Investment Insights

  • In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor

Archives

  • Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997

Ad-free Reading

  • Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements

Seamless Access Across All Devices

  • Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app

More From This Section

First Published: Nov 29 2015 | 9:48 AM IST

Next Story