On Wednesday, the Delhi High Court addressed concerns surrounding the manner in which lawyers are engaged to represent the Union Government, directing the Centre to take a reasoned decision on framing formal guidelines within a fixed timeframe. While refraining from entering into the merits of recent empanelment exercises, the Court placed the issue squarely within the executive’s domain, setting a clear deadline for administrative action.
The case arose from a Public Interest Litigation filed by Vishal Sharma, who questioned the recent empanelment of counsels appointed to represent the Central Government before the Delhi High Court and subordinate courts. The Petitioner contended that the process lacked transparency and uniform standards. The plea came up before a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela.
Appearing for the Union of India, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta informed the Court that the Central Government would “take a call” on the issue and work out an appropriate mechanism governing the engagement of its counsels. On behalf of the petitioner, it was urged that the absence of structured norms had resulted in arbitrary empanelment, warranting judicial intervention.
The Bench chose not to adjudicate on the legality of the impugned empanelment, instead treating the plea as a representation requiring administrative consideration. Making it clear that it was not expressing any view on the petitioner’s allegations, the Court recorded that the individual grievances raised would be examined by the Government. On the broader issue of policy formulation, the Bench directed, “So far as framing of guidelines is concerned, we grant three months to the Central Government to take a decision and issue guidelines for engagement of counsels to represent its various departments.”
In light of the above directions, the Court closed the PIL, granting the Union Government three months to decide on and issue guidelines for the engagement of its counsels, while clarifying that no findings had been returned on the merits of the petitioner’s claims.
Disclaimer: This news/ article includes information received via a syndicated news feed. The original rights remain with the respective publisher.
Picture Source :
