The Delhi High Court recently dismissed a plea challenging the method of empanelment of advocates to represent the Union Government.
Terming it a ‘publicity interest litigation’, the division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that the petitioner, who is an Advocate, has filed the instant petition after being a beneficiary of the very same process which has been assailed in the present petition only because he has been denied extension or reappointment.
Advocate Rajinder Nischal, the petitioner-in-person, approached the High Court contending that the size of the panel to represent the Central government is not fixed and that the government does not even invite applications for appointment or renewal of the panel. He further contended that the appointment of Advocates as Government Counsel is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in ‘State of Punjab v. Brijeshwar Singh Chahal’.
The bench noted that the petitioner himself was an empanelled government counsel and that at the time of his empanelment also, neither was there any fixed panel of advocates to represent the Government of India nor was he subjected to any written examination before his appointment as Government Counsel.
Referring to the decision of the apex court in Brijeshwar Singh Chahal, the bench observed that the challenge before the top court was qua a post, whereas in the present case, the challenge is for the mode of empanelment of lawyers.
“Unlike the case before the Apex Court, in the present case there is no fixed salary. In fact, in the present case even a retainer fee is not paid to the lawyers who are empanelled. The Lawyers empanelled by the Government of India are paid their fee on a case-to-case basis. As stated earlier, the Petitioner herein has himself been a beneficiary of the process which he is now challenging in the present petition. The judgment of the Apex Court will definitely apply to those States where monthly salary or a retainer fee is paid to the Law Officers and it will not apply to a case where lawyers are being empanelled and are paid on a case to case basis,” underscored the bench.
The bench further observed, “A litigant can always choose a lawyer to represent him and the Government of India, which is one of the largest litigant in the country, has the freedom to appoint its own lawyers. This Court is of the view that the present petition is nothing but a Publicity Interest Litigation.”
While observing that the instant petition has been filed only to ‘upset the apple cart’, the bench went on to add that the ‘attractive brand name’ of public interest litigation should not be used for suspicious products of mischief and should be aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury.
“Courts must be careful to see that a member of public who approaches the Court is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private motive or political motivation or other oblique consideration,” cautioned the bench.