In a significant procedural moment raising serious questions about ethical boundaries for government law officers, the Allahabad High Court stepped in to scrutinise whether an Additional Chief Standing Counsel (ACSC) can simultaneously represent a private party in a criminal case where the State itself is a party, setting the stage for a wider examination of professional conduct and institutional propriety.
The controversy began when, during the hearing of a criminal revision, Sri Indrasen Singh Tomar, who is also serving as an Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh, sought permission to appear on behalf of a private respondent. This move was immediately resisted by counsel for the revisionist, who argued that once appointed as a State law officer, such counsel is barred from representing private parties in cases involving the State. The objection triggered a sharp procedural dispute, bringing into focus the delicate line between private practice and public duty.
Taking note of the objection, the Court did not rush to a conclusion. Instead, it pressed pause and demanded institutional clarity. The Bench found it necessary to examine the statutory and regulatory framework governing the rights, duties, and limitations of an Additional Chief Standing Counsel, observing that the issue was not merely personal but systemic.
Emphasising the need for an authoritative position, the Court directed the Principal Secretary (Law) & Legal Remembrancer to file a detailed report clarifying whether such dual representation is permissible, along with the relevant rules and provisions. In a pointed observation, the Court underscored the importance of transparency, noting that it was “important to ask for a report… about the rights and duties of Additional Chief Standing Counsel in regard to his appearance on behalf of a private party as a counsel.”
Consequently, the matter was adjourned, granting two weeks’ time both to the counsel concerned and to the State Law Department to place the legal position on record, with strict directions for compliance.
Case Title: Smt. Meera Devi Vs. State of U.P. and Anr.
Case No.: Criminal Revision No. - 2843 of 2018
Coram: Justice Divesh Chandra Samant
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Upendra Kumar Mishra
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. G.A., Indrasen Singh Tomar
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
