"Don't target anyone," SC on plea to remove High Court judge's husband from Standing Counsel post

The Supreme Court today refused to entertain an appeal filed against a Allahabad High Court order refusing to oust from office the Law Officer of the State (Standing Counsel, Government of U.P.).

In May, the Allahabad High Court had rejected a petition seeking the ouster of Justice Sangeeta Chandra’s husband Sandeep Chandra from the post of Standing Counsel, Government of Uttar Pradesh.

When the matter was taken up today, CJI Surya Kant said, "There are some issues to be handled on the administrative side. Please do not name anyone or target anyone".

Accordingly, the counsel sought to withdraw the petition.

Before the High Court, a direction was also sought to set aside the renewal or the renewals of the said appointment, if any, after summoning the letter of the said appointment, and the letter or the letters of renewal of the said appointment, if any, from the Government of U.P.

A further direction was sought commanding the State of U.P. to recover from the judge's spouse the public money paid by the Government of U.P. to him for the period he has illegally held the office of the Law Officer of the State in spite of his wife being a Judge or, in the alternative, recover the said public money personally from the officers of the Government of U.P. and the persons involved in the affairs of the State responsible for the making of the said illegal appointment in spite of his wife being a Judge of the High Court and to take such other stringent action against the said officers and persons involved in the affairs of the State.

Court was told that the concerned Advocate was disqualified to be appointed as a Standing Counsel but the State of U.P. while engaging him ignored the aspects of the matter as also the provisions contained in Clause (4) of Appendix B contained in general instructions relating to the appointment and tenure of Law Officers of the State in the High Court referable to para 5.02 of the Legal Remembrancer's Manual.

The High Court while refusing the petition had referred to certain averments made in the writ petition which according to it were not only in bad taste but amounted to scandalizing the office of a Judge and were also derogatory to both the parties.

"A writ petition drafted by a Lawyer especially one who is appearing in person and has 30 years practice behind him should not contain such intemperate language as has been used herein. We pointed out this fact to the petitioner towards the end of the arguments and he stated that he will keep this in mind in future, but, what about the fodder he has supplied for rumour mongers in the corridors and outside it, by making such averments. He should ponder over it seriously, introspect as to whether he is utilizing his intellectual capacity in the right direction. What purpose is sought to be served by making such averments, without any basis? We say no more in the solemn hope that the petitioner will introspect, take corrective measures and shall utilize his legal acumen and intellect for achieving higher goals", the high court had observed.