Justice Sachin Datta, Delhi High Court
No Legal Right: Delhi HC Dismisses Petition Seeking Inclusion Of Names In List Of Empaneled Counsels For Union of India
|The Petitioners before the Delhi High Court sought a direction to the Respondent to include the names of the petitioners in the list of empanelled counsels for the UOI for the years 2022 to December 2024.
While dismissing a Petition filed by the petitioners seeking inclusion of their names in the list of empanelled counsels for the Union Of India, the Delhi High Court has reiterated that there is no legal right to be appointed as a Government Counsel.
The Petitioners before the Delhi High Court sought a direction to the Respondent to include the names of the petitioners in the list of empanelled counsels for the UOI for the year 2022 to December 2024.
Referring to the judgments wherein petitions involving similar issue had been dismissed, the Single Bench of Justice Sachin Datta said, “In the circumstances, considering the observations made in Rajinder Nischal vs. Union of India through its Secretary & Anr., (supra) and WG CDR RETD V.S. Tomar Advocate vs Union of India and Ors (supra), this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition.”
Advocate Ravindra Kumar Srivastava represented the Petitioners, while CGSC Ripudaman Bhardwaj represented the Respondent
Factual Background
The Petitioners had averred that despite their application for appointment as a Panel Counsel for the Union of India being forwarded to the respondent, the list issued by the respondent, containing the details of selected empaneled counsels for the years 2022 to 2024, failed to record their names. A fresh recommendation was forwarded to the respondent for appointing the petitioners as empaneled counsel. However, again, despite several follow-ups/representations, the concerned authority failed to add the names of the petitioners to the final list of Panel Counsel for the respondent.
Aggrieved, the petitioner made a written representation, requesting the respondent to include their names. However, the representation had neither been responded to nor any action had been initiated/undertaken by the respondents to update the list as requested.
Reasoning
The Bench noted that the issue agitated by the petitioners in the present petition was similar to the issue which had already been considered in WG CDR RETD V.S. Tomar Advocate vs Union of India and Ors. (2022). The petitioner, therein, had sought a direction to the Union of India, Ministry of Law and Justice, for inclusion of his name in the Panel of Counsels for the Union of India across various courts and tribunals. However, this Petition was dismissed with the observation that there is no legal right of the Petitioner to be appointed as a Government Counsel. It was also held that the Petitioner cannot claim empanelment as a Counsel for the Union of India as a matter of right. It is the pure discretion of the Government whether to appoint an Advocate as a Counsel or not.
Reliance was also placed upon the judgment in Rajinder Nischal vs. Union of India through its Secretary & Anr. (2023) wherein it was observed that a litigant can always choose a lawyer to represent him and the Government of India, which is one of the largest litigants in the country, has the freedom to appoint its own lawyers.
Thus, relying upon the observations made in Relajinder Nischal vs. Union of India through its Secretary &Anr. (supra) and WG CDR RETD V.S. Tomar Advocate vs Union of India and Ors (supra), the Bench dismissed the Petition.
Cause Title: Sandeep Kumar Srivastava and Anr. v. Union of India (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:4408)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocate Ravindra Kumar Srivastava
Respondents: CGSC Ripudaman Bhardwaj, Advocates Kushagra Kumar, Abhinav Bhardwaj, Amit Kumar Rana