Appointment Of State Law Officers Must Follow Need Assessment & Transparent, Merit-Based Criteria: Allahabad High Court Issues Guidelines

The guidelines govern the appointment and conduct of Government Advocates, Additional Government Advocates, Chief Standing Counsel, Additional Chief Standing Counsel, Standing Counsel and Brief Holders in civil and criminal matters.

The Court was hearing three connected petitions concerning the process followed for appointing State Law Officers under the Legal Remembrancer’s Manual and seeking a transparent selection mechanism based on merit, integrity, professional experience and suitability.

A Division Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Rajeev Bharti observed: “… in any system where some vacancy needs to be filled, a 'needs assessment' is first and foremost the process that must be adopted; the same should be applied in the present case also. While doing so, this Court is not in any manner hampering the State's autonomy to appoint State Law officer. We are also making it clear that the 'needs assessment' need not show the exact number of advocates necessary to facilitate the State's affairs; an approximate figure will also work, but some realistic assessment must be done”.

The Bench, accordingly, found it appropriate to “carve out the guidelines for appointments of the State Law Officers, i.e. Government Advocate, Additional Government Advocate, Chief Standing Counsel, Additional Chief Standing Counsel, Standing Counsel and Brief Holders (civil and criminal).”

Advocate Chandra Bhushan Pandey appeared for the petitioner in the lead petition. Advocate General Ajay Kumar Mishra, assisted by Additional Advocate General D.V. Singh, appeared for the State.

Background

The connected petitions challenged the process followed for appointments made through lists issued by the State in 2017, 2022 and 2023. The petitioners sought implementation of the principles stated by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Brijeshwar Singh Chahal (2016) and corresponding changes to the Legal Remembrancer’s Manual.

The petitioners alleged an absence of public notice, need assessment, objective evaluation and a transparent selection mechanism. They also raised concerns regarding the number of appointments, criminal antecedents of proposed appointees and the financial burden upon the State.

An intervenor contended that the appointment process lacked adequate representation for women advocates. Another intervenor raised issues concerning private practice by State Law Officers, performance assessment, grievance redressal and their participation in elections to Bar Associations and the Bar Council.

The State submitted that Brijeshwar Singh Chahal (2016) arose from materially different circumstances concerning Punjab and Haryana. It pointed out that Uttar Pradesh had a Legal Remembrancer’s Manual and a committee headed by the Advocate General for scrutinising candidates and considering the continuation or renewal of existing State Law Officers.

The State also relied upon the difference in remuneration structures. It submitted that Punjab and Haryana followed consolidated monthly payments, while Uttar Pradesh provided a monthly retainership supplemented by appearance or hearing fees.

Court’s Observations

The Court held that Brijeshwar Singh Chahal (2016) could not be applied directly to Uttar Pradesh because the foundational facts underlying that decision were absent. It noted that the Supreme Court’s directions arose from circumstances including a Comptroller and Auditor General report and the absence of norms governing appointments in Punjab and Haryana.

The Court observed that Uttar Pradesh had a Legal Remembrancer’s Manual governing such appointments and followed a different remuneration model.

Relying on State of Madhya Pradesh v. Narmada Bachao Andolan (2011), Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Gurnam Kaur (1989), Government of Karnataka v. Gowramma (2007) and State of Haryana v. Dharam Singh (2009), the Court held that a precedent must be applied after examining whether the material facts and issues correspond with those in the case being decided.

The Court observed: “A proper LR Manual is there which governs the appointment of the State Law Officers in the State of U.P., and in the absence of the above foundational facts, the petitioners cannot claim that the ratio of Chahal(supra) should be applied; a precedent cannot be applied in a vacuum where the underlying factual prerequisites are absent.”

The Court nevertheless noted that Brijeshwar Singh Chahal (2016) had advised other States to make their appointment systems transparent, fair and objective and, where necessary, amend the applicable manuals or regulations.

The Court held that the State retained the authority to determine the number of State Law Officers and the method of their appointment. It clarified, however, that the State must demonstrate that its search was for meritorious candidates and that appointments were not made for extraneous considerations.

The Court stated: “However, we make it clear that appointments must be based on merit. We also make it clear that we are not commenting upon the total number of State Law officers or how they should be appointed; that's totally the State's domain to work on; but whatever method is adopted, it must be shown that the appointments were made only on the basis of the merit and not for any other consideration.”

The Court relied upon State of Uttar Pradesh v. U.P. State Law Officers’ Association (1994), which held that public bodies must adopt a mode of appointment conforming to their obligation to select the most meritorious lawyers.

The Court held that an intervenor could not expand the scope of the petitions by independently challenging the Legal Remembrancer’s Manual as unconstitutional under Articles 14, 15 and 16.

It nevertheless directed the State to ensure adequate representation of women advocates in appointments of State Law Officers, subject to their availability.

The Court did not adopt the intervenor’s request for a specified percentage of representation. Its guideline was confined to adequate representation subject to availability.

The Court examined the allegation that some State Law Officers were representing private parties against the State. It found that the intervenor had produced the name of only one advocate and that the material was insufficient to reach a definite conclusion about the capacity in which the advocate had appeared.

The Court nevertheless held that such a practice, if prevalent, had to be stopped. It directed that a State Law Officer representing a private party in a matter against the State must first obtain a no-objection certificate from the competent authority and annex it to the vakalatnama.

The Court clarified that the restriction would not apply to Brief Holders and would remain subject to the restriction contained in Paragraph 6.11 of the Legal Remembrancer’s Manual.

The Court further held that a separate grievance-redressal committee was unnecessary because the Manual already contained a mechanism for supervising the conduct, integrity and performance of Government Counsel. It observed that the existing mechanism could be strengthened and effectively enforced.

The Court directed that annual returns under Paragraph 4.19 of the Manual should cover every category of case handled by State Law Officers instead of remaining confined to criminal cases.

The Court noted that the Legal Remembrancer’s Manual contained no provision disqualifying a person from appointment or continuation as a State Law Officer because of a pending serious criminal case. It also found no provision governing the assessment of such a person’s suitability.

Referring to Mohd. Kafeel v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025), the Court observed that scrutiny of criminal antecedents assumed greater importance where the advocate sought appointment as a State Law Officer.

The Court stated: “A State Law officer does not merely appear in the capacity of a private legal practitioner; he represents the State and is entrusted with the responsibility of assisting the Court in the administration of justice.”

The Court added that appointments could not be separated from considerations of integrity, criminal antecedents, professional conduct and public confidence. It directed that no person with criminal antecedents or undesirable behaviour should be appointed as a State Law Officer.

The Court further directed that whenever an FIR or criminal case was registered against a serving State Law Officer in Uttar Pradesh, a copy of the FIR should be forwarded without delay to the Advocate General for information and necessary action.

The Court held that the State had discretion under Paragraphs 4.01 and 5.01 of the Legal Remembrancer’s Manual to determine the number of Government Advocates and Standing Counsel. It observed that the discretion could not be exercised arbitrarily, mechanically or for appeasement, or result in unnecessary appointments at the expense of the public exchequer.

The Court found that the State had not produced any assessment, data, criteria or methodology demonstrating how it determined the approximate number of State Law Officers required to represent it effectively.

The Court clarified that its observations were not intended to disturb existing appointments. It directed the State to consider the identified deficiencies when undertaking future appointments.

The Court noted that Paragraph 5.01 of the Legal Remembrancer’s Manual contemplated one Chief Standing Counsel for the High Court at Allahabad and another for its Lucknow Bench, apart from such number of Standing Counsel as the Government might appoint.

The Court found no explanation in the material before it for the appointment of six Chief Standing Counsel. It acknowledged that workload and administrative requirements might justify appointing more than one Chief Standing Counsel in an appropriate case.

The Court held that any such appointments must be supported by an objective assessment of actual need and workload. It clarified that its observations cast no adverse aspersion upon the existing appointees and concerned only the need for a transparent and rational appointment mechanism and proper use of public funds.

The Court directed the State to undertake a proper, need-based assessment of the number of State Law Officers required for the efficient and smooth conduct of State litigation.

It directed the State to prescribe clear, objective and transparent eligibility and selection criteria addressing professional experience, competence, integrity, behaviour and suitability for office. The State was also directed to ensure that no person with criminal antecedents or undesirable behaviour was appointed.

The Court directed that the annual-return requirement under Paragraph 4.19 of the Legal Remembrancer’s Manual should extend to all categories of cases handled by State Law Officers.

It directed that the selection and appointment process, including the eligibility criteria and assessment, should be transparent and placed in the public domain to the extent permissible.

The Court directed the State to ensure adequate representation of women advocates, subject to availability.

It directed that any FIR or criminal case registered against a serving State Law Officer in Uttar Pradesh should be forwarded without delay to the Advocate General, who should take the necessary steps according to the required standard of professional integrity and administration of justice.

The Court directed that a State Law Officer representing a private party in a matter against the State must obtain a no-objection certificate from the competent authority and annex it to the vakalatnama. It held that violation of this requirement would entail appropriate action, including disciplinary action.

The Court also directed the State Government to examine whether a serving State Law Officer could contest or participate in an election to a Bar Association or Bar Council. It required consultation with representatives of the Bar, Bar Associations, the Bar Council, State Law Officers and other relevant stakeholders before an appropriate decision was taken.

Conclusion

The Allahabad High Court clarified that the directions were not intended to disturb appointments already made.

The Court disposed of all three connected petitions in terms of the guidelines.

Cause Title: Mahendra Singh Pawar v. State of Uttar Pradesh Through Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister and Others (Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC-LKO:72290-DB)

Appearances

Petitioners: Advocates Chandra Bhushan Pandey, Tripti, Mohit Ashok, Arundhati Thakur, Asim Kumar Singh, Alok Kirti Mishra and Dharmesh Kumar Dwivedi; petitioners Mahendra Nath Rai and Rama Shankar Tiwari appeared in person

Intervenor: Advocate Arun Kumar Tiwari appeared in person

Respondents: Advocate General Ajay Kumar Mishra; Additional Advocates General D.V. Singh and Kuldeep Pati Tripathi; Chief Standing Counsel Shailendra Kumar Singh; Additional Chief Standing Counsel Vivek Shukla and Ishan Mehta; Standing Counsel Yogesh Kumar Awasthi

Click here to read/download Judgment