2015 (11) TMI 1795 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court directs fresh appointments of District Government Counsel in Uttar Pradesh

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's order, and directed the State Government to make fresh appointments of District ... Renewal as also the appointment of District Government Counsel (Civil and Criminal) in the Subordinate Courts across the State of Uttar Pradesh - the Orders of the State Government terminating the appointment of District Government Counsel is quashed and further direction is given to State Government to reconsider their renewal - Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Vikramajit Sen, J. HELD THAT:- The law pertaining to the appointment of Additional District Government Counsel, Assistant District Government Counsel, Panel lawyers and Sub District Government Counsel was directly in issue before the Three-Judge Bench in State of U.P. v. Johri Mal [2004 (4) TMI 588 - SUPREME COURT] where the law has been comprehensively clarified - In Johri Mal, this Court perused the LR Manual as also the Code of Criminal Procedure and reiterated that the District Counsel stood professionally engaged; that the State Government was free to determine the course of action after being satisfied of their performance, and that the Courts must be circumspect in the exercise of judicial review on matters which fell within the discretion of the State Government, i.e. appointment of their counsel or advocates. This Court reiterated that the District Counsels do not enjoy the statutory rights with respect to the renewals of tenures and the State Government enjoyed the discretionary powers in this respect. The curial performance of the advocates should not be the sole criterion for their reappointment as District Counsel and that the State Government must be free to repose trust and confidence in the persons whom they choose to appoint as their advocates. It is beyond cavil that it is in the interest of the dispensation of criminal justice that competent counsel possessing integrity should alone be appointed, since otherwise, there is a strong possibility of miscarriage of justice. In choosing them, the State will not only have to be satisfied of their forensic competence, but also that they are bereft of any criminal antecedents. This, however, does not mean that the persons presently discharging the duties of Additional District Government Counsel, Assistant District Government Counsel, Panel lawyers and Sub District Government Counsel stand appointed to civil posts, thereby creating a right of continuity. The correct approach is to ensure the competency of advocates being considered for appointment of Additional District Government Counsel, Assistant District Government Counsel, Panel lawyers and Sub District Government Counsel. It seems to us that it would be an incorrect approach to start this process by considering the re-appointment or renewal of existing Government Counsels since that would dilute, nay, dissolve the discretion of the Government to appoint advocates whom they find trustworthy. The High Court has followed the second approach leading to the dissatisfaction of the State Government and their resentment that their realm of discretion has been eroded for no justifiable reason - Appeals allowed. Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. HELD THAT:- Keeping in view the authoritative pronouncement rendered in Johri Mal' case (supra), there does not arise any occasion to again examine the same issues more so when in these very proceedings though at the instance of some other persons, these issues had reached to this Court on previous occasions as mentioned by my learned Brother in the main judgment which also came to be decided by this Court. Indeed the principles of 'precedent' and 'Stare Decisis' command us to follow the law laid down by this Court and more so when it was rendered by a Bench consisted of three judges. Also, the High Court though dealt with the issues but as aptly put by my learned Brother in paragraph 15 'incorrectly' thereby calling our interference. Thus, the fresh appointments to be now made keeping in view the apt observations made especially in the case of Johri Mal and what is held in main judgment. Issues Involved:1. Renewal and appointment of District Government Counsel (Civil and Criminal) in Uttar Pradesh.2. Validity of the High Court's order quashing the State Government's termination of District Government Counsel appointments.3. Compliance with Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Legal Remembrancer Manual.4. Judicial review of the State Government's discretion in appointing counsel.5. Application of the doctrine of precedent and stare decisis.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Renewal and Appointment of District Government Counsel:The appeals concern the renewal and appointment of District Government Counsel (DGC) in Uttar Pradesh. The State Government's termination of DGCs was challenged, and the High Court directed reconsideration of renewals in accordance with Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Legal Remembrancer Manual (LR Manual). The LR Manual mandates consultation with the District Judge and the District Magistrate for such appointments.2. Validity of the High Court's Order:The High Court quashed the State Government's orders terminating the appointments of DGCs and directed the State to reconsider their renewal. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court's decision sought to perpetuate an illegality by not adhering to the procedural requirements and principles laid down in previous judgments, particularly in the case of State of U.P. v. Johri Mal.3. Compliance with Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the LR Manual:The Supreme Court emphasized that appointments and renewals must comply with Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the LR Manual. The LR Manual, amended in 2008, removed the requirement for consultation with the District Judge, which was a significant point in the decision. The Court reiterated that the State Government must follow the procedures laid down in these regulations.4. Judicial Review of the State Government's Discretion:The Court reiterated that the appointment of DGCs is a professional engagement, and the State Government has the discretion to determine the course of action based on the performance and trust in the counsel. The Court must exercise judicial review with caution and not interfere with the State's discretion unless there is a clear deviation from legal principles or mandatory provisions.5. Application of the Doctrine of Precedent and Stare Decisis:The Supreme Court underscored the importance of following precedents and the doctrine of stare decisis. The judgment in State of U.P. v. Johri Mal, delivered by a Three-Judge Bench, is binding and must be followed. The Court criticized the High Court for not adhering to this precedent, leading to inconsistency and uncertainty in the law.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned judgment, and directed the State Government to make fresh appointments expeditiously, in compliance with the principles laid down in Johri Mal and other relevant judgments. The Court emphasized the need for competent counsel with integrity to be appointed to ensure the proper administration of justice.