Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has said the States and Union Territories have power to change the panel of lawyers upon change of dispensation and the political party in power but they should allow old panel to continue for at least six weeks so as to avoid adjournments in cases due to lack of instructions.

A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan said that during the last few months, this court had noticed that after the change of power from one political party to another, the States/Union Territories are changing their panel of advocates appearing in this court, making the court to grant adjournments from time to time on this ground.

"It is true that the States/Union Territories have power to change their empanelled advocates, but while doing so, they must ensure that the court’s functioning is not adversely affected. Therefore, it will be appropriate if the States/Union Territories while changing the panel of advocates continue the old panel for at least six weeks so that the Courts are not forced to grant adjournments," the bench said.

The court directed its Registry to circulate a copy of this order to the Standing Counsel representing all the States/Union Territories.

On March 20, 2024, the court had said although States have a freedom to change their panel of lawyers but they cannot change it in such a manner that it will cause prejudice to the functioning of the courts. It had then issued notice to the Secretary of the Ministry of Law, State of Uttarakhand to remain present in court personally on April 1, 2024. 

As the court was then hearing a matter, the counsel appearing for the respondent State of Uttarakhand stated that though vakalatnama has been filed on January 31, 2024, no instructions have been given to file a counter affidavit, presumably because a new panel of State counsel has come into effect from March 9, 2024.

On April 1, 2024, the Secretary of the Ministry of Law, State of Uttarakhand, was present in the court. The counsel appearing for the State submitted that there was no change of the panel of advocates for the last seven to eight years, therefore, the change has taken place.

The matter before the court arose out of the High Court's order of November 10, 2023, which dismissed a bail plea by Sachin Kumar, an assistant proctor, who allegedly helped the candidates in by unfair means in an examination conducted by the Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Selection Commission, Dehradun.

The court granted bail to the appellant as he has undergone incarceration for a period of more than one and a half years, charge sheet has been filed, charges have been framed and at least four co-accused have been enlarged on bail.

"No antecedents of the appellant have been brought on record. Therefore, in our view, the appellant deserves to be enlarge on bail, pending the final disposal of the case," the bench said.

The offences alleged against the appellant were punishable under Sections 420, 409 and 120B of the IPC, read with Sections 3, 4, 6, 9 and 10 of the Uttar Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1988, carrying the maximum sentence of 10 years. 

The court directed that the appellant would be produced before the Trial Court within a period of one week. The Trial Court would enlarge the appellant on bail on appropriate terms and conditions till the final disposal of the case, it ordered.

"Needless to add that, if the appellant misuses the liberty granted to him under the order of bail, it will always be open for the respondent-State to apply for cancellation of bail," the bench ordered.

Case Title: SACHIN KUMAR vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND