Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court, yesterday, dismissed a Public Interest Litigation filed by an advocate challenging the process of empanelment as Government Counsel for the Union of India.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad, while dismissing the petition, observed, “It seems that the Petitioner, who is an Advocate, has filed the present petition after being a beneficiary of the very same process which has been assailed in the present Writ Petition only because he has been denied extension or reappointment. A litigant can always choose a lawyer to represent him and the Government of India, which is one of the largest litigant in the country, has the freedom to appoint its own lawyers. This Court is of the view that the present petition is nothing but a Publicity Interest Litigation.”

With respect to the practice of using Public Interest Litigation as an instrument to fulfil personal vendetta, Court further observed, “The attractive brand name of Public Interest Litigation should not be used for suspicious products of mischief and should be aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. Courts must be careful to see that a member of public who approaches the Court is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private motive or political motivation or other oblique consideration.”

Reliance was inter-alia placed on the Top Court decisions in Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of India (2018) 6 SCC 72, B. Singh v. Union of India (2004) 3 SCC 363 and State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh (2010) 3 SCC 402, in this regard.

Brief Background

The present writ petition was filed by an advocate challenging the method of empanelment of advocates to represent the Union of India.

It was contended that the size of the panel to represent the Government of India is not fixed and the government does not invite applications for appointment or renewal of the panel and as such, the appointment to the post of government counsel is contrary to the law laid down by the Top Court in State of Punjab v. Brijeshwar Singh Chahal, (2016) 6 SCC 1.

The Court distinguished the aforesaid judgment from the contentions raised in the present petition stating, “Unlike the case before the Apex Court, in the present case there is no fixed salary. In fact, in the present case even a retainer fee is not paid to the lawyers who are empanelled. The Lawyers empanelled by the Government of India are paid their fee on a case to case basis… The judgment of the Apex Court will definitely apply to those States where monthly salary or a retainer fee is paid to the Law Officers and it will not apply to a case where lawyers are being empanelled and are paid on a case to case basis”.

Case Title: Rajinder Nischal v. Union of India | WP (C) 10431 of 2022