Can a Government Law Officer Defend a Private Party When State Is a Party? Allahabad High Court Seeks Answers

The Allahabad High Court has sought clarity from the Uttar Pradesh government on whether an Additional Chief Standing Counsel can represent a private party in a criminal case in which the State is also a party, after an objection was raised during the hearing of a criminal revision filed by Smt. Meera Devi.

The issue arose when Advocate Indrasen Singh Tomar appeared on behalf of a private party in criminal revision matter of 2018. Advocate Tomar also holds the position of Additional Chief Standing Counsel, a fact that prompted an objection from the counsel representing the revisionist.

At the outset of the hearing, the court recorded the presence of counsel for the revisionist, the additional government advocate for the State of Uttar Pradesh, and Advocate Indrasen Singh Tomar for opposite private party. Advocate Tomar sought court’s permission to appear for the private opposite party. This request was immediately opposed by the revisionist’s counsel.

The revisionist’s counsel submitted that once a lawyer has been assigned duties as an Additional Chief Standing Counsel, he cannot represent a private individual in a case where the State is also a contesting party.

In response to the objection, advocate Tomar sought time from the court to place the relevant statutory provisions, rules, or government instructions governing the appointment and role of Additional Chief Standing Counsel. He submitted that he would demonstrate, through the applicable legal framework, whether or not such an appearance was permissible.

Taking note of the submissions, court granted advocate Tomar two weeks’ time to place the requisite provisions before it. However, observing that the issue involved a larger question concerning the role, duties, and limitations of government law officers, the court deemed it necessary to seek an authoritative clarification from the State itself.

Accordingly, court directed the Principal Secretary (Law) & Legal Remembrancer of Uttar Pradesh to submit a detailed report on the rights and duties of an Additional Chief Standing Counsel, particularly in relation to appearing on behalf of a private party as counsel. The report is to be accompanied by the relevant provisions, rules, or instructions governing such conduct.

The court fixed a two-week timeline for the submission of this report and directed that the matter be listed after two weeks, peremptorily. To ensure prompt compliance, the Registrar (Compliance) of the high court was directed to forward a copy of the order to the Principal Secretary (Law) & L.R. within 48 hours.

Case Title: Smt. Meera Devi vs. State of U.P. and Another

Order Date: January 7, 2026

Bench: Justice Divesh Chandra Samant