COMMISSIONER AGRA Vs. ROHTAS SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) These appeals are from a judgment of the Allahabad High Court holding that Government Advocates and Standing Counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh cannot be allowed to appear and defend Government officials against whom notices for contempt of Court are issued. In the Allahabad High Court advocates for the State appearing in criminal matters are designated as Government Advocates while advocates on behalf of the State appearing in civil matters are designated as Standing Counsel. The High Court had held that neither category of advocates can appear in contempt proceedings on behalf of an alleged contemnor who is an official of the State Government. The Allahabad High Court has further held that no monetary help from the State Exchequer can be extended to such Government officials towards litigation expenses in contempt proceedings. These expenses are to be incurred personally by the Government officials concerned which can be subsequently reimbursed to them if they are honourably exonerated in contempt proceedings. The High Court has also struck down a Government Order dated 12th of September, 1996 issued by the Special Secretary and Additional Legal Remembrancer, Government of U.P. under which a panel of Advocates has been nominated for appearance in contempt petitions filed against the Government of U.P. and its officers and/or employees. The High Court has struck down the names of the two Additional Chief Standing Counsel from both these panels. It has also held as of no consequence, the relevant provisions in the Legal Remembrancer's Manual permitting Government Advocates and/or Standing Counsel to appear in such matters. The impugned judgment has been pronounced in the course of contempt proceedings for alleged violation of the orders of the Allahabad High Court dated 6-9-1996 in Civil (Misc.) Writ Petition No. 28721 of 1996 - Rohtas Singh v. Commissioner, Agra Division, and the order of the High Court dated 11-7-1996 in Civil (Misc.) Writ Petition No. 21843 of 1996 - Gaon Panchayat of Village Bhavokara v. District Panchayat Raj Adhikari, Bulandshaher. In these proceedings, Shri S.M.A. Kazmi, Additional Chief Standing Counsel appeared for the alleged contemnors who were Government officials and who were alleged to have violated the respective orders in the above two writ petitions. When the Court raised an objection that the State Law Officers cannot appear in contempt proceedings to defend the contemnors, Shri S.M.A. Kazmi, Additional Chief Standing Counsel drew the attention of the Court to the above Government Order No. D/2714/7-Nyay-3-96-83/96, dated 12th September, 1996 under which six State Law Officers as aforesaid had been appointed by the State Government to appear in all contempt cases in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and its Bench at Lucknow for the purpose of defending the State Government Officers/employees who were charged with contempt. Mr. Kazmi contended that he being one of the six State Law Officers so named, was authorised to appear for the alleged contemners.

(3.) The attention of the High Court was also drawn to the Legal Remembrancer's Manual of 1975. Under the Legal Remembrancer's Manual of 1975 Chapter V deals with Chief Standing Counsel and Standing Counsel in the High Court who are responsible for the conduct of all civil cases in the High Court to which the State Government is a party. Under Clause 5.04 of Chapter V the Standing Counsel is entitled to represent the State or any authority within the State in such other civil cases in which he might be required or directed to appear by the Government, the Legal Remembrancer of the High Court. Chapter IV deals with Government Advocate, his deputies and assistants. Under Clause 4.07 of Chapter IV, the Government Advocate, Additional Government Advocate, Deputy Government Advocate or Assistant Government Advocate shall have the right of private practice but shall not, except under special permission of the Government, appear for the defence in any criminal or quasi-criminal case or proceedings nor can he advise any private party regarding any criminal case which might be pending or be likely to be instituted in Uttar Pradesh.