Read Time: 05 minutes
Justice Masoodi noted that state counsel often takes the liberty of interpreting matters based on personal understanding rather than adhering to the facts as recorded
In a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) hearing on the Bahraich demolition notices, the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, today sharply criticized the conduct of state counsel.
The PIL was filed by the Association for Protection of Civil Rights, challenging the issuance of demolition notices to 23 individuals, including Abdul Hameed, the main accused in the Bahraich violence case.
The bench of Justice Attau Rehman Masoodi and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi is seized with the PIL.
During the proceedings, Justice Attau Rehman Masoodi expressed concern over the state's approach, stating that the practice of presenting arguments based solely on the understanding of counsel, rather than on official records, needs to be stopped. He emphasized that "the stand of the government should not flow from the reasoning of the counsel. It should flow from the records."
Justice Masoodi further noted that state counsel often takes the liberty of interpreting matters based on personal understanding rather than adhering to record.
He insisted that this practice must be discouraged, calling for all standing counsel to ensure that whatever is presented in court must be derived from official documents.
"Mostly counsel for the State take liberty in putting forth the thing that they understand. This practice needs to be discouraged," he remarked.
He stressed that only facts should be placed before the court so that the correct stand of the State is put forth.
He told the State counsel, "You may be very strong in your diary, but that is not the stand of the State.
Today, in the morning, the state requested an adjournment until 2:15 PM, informing the court that the Supreme Court was currently hearing the matter. The state also orally assured the court that it had conveyed to the Supreme Court that no demolitions would take place till today. However, the Allahabad High Court took a serious view of this oral assurance, demanding a written order on record to confirm the state’s submission.
On October 20, the court had asked the state to respond on two key points: the maintainability of the PIL in the current case and the nature of the concerned road, determining whether the evacuation notices issued were valid. The state is to submit its reply.
Case Title: Association For Protection Of Civil Rights (Apcr) Thru. Its Vice President ( Up East Chapter) Vs. State Of U.P. Thur. Its Chief Secy. Lko. And 5 Others
Please Login or Register
