Delhi High Court Dismisses Lawyer's Plea Challenging Method Of Empanelment Of Central Government Counsel
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition filed under Article 226 challenging the method of empanelment of Advocates to represent the Union of India, terming the plea a Publicity Interest Litigation. The Court also noted that the Petitioner himself was earlier a Counsel for the Central Government.
A Division Bench headed by Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad stated that “petition is nothing but a Publicity Interest Litigation. 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.”
Adding on to the point of the Courts being careful about dealing with frivolous PILs, the Bench said “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.”
Advocate Rajinder Nischal who was the Petitioner appeared in person while ASG Chetan Sharma and CGSC Apoorv Kurup represented the Respondents.
The petition challenged the method of empanelment of advocates to represent the Government of India in various litigations. The Petitioner in his petition submitted that there is no fixed criteria regarding the size of the panel of advocates and that the Government does not invite applications for appointment or renewal of the panel.
The Court while looking into the petition expressed that “The Lawyers empaneled by the Government of India are paid their fee on a case-to-case basis. The Petitioner herein has himself been a beneficiary of the process which he is now challenging in the present petition.”
Further, the Court stated that “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.”
Since there was no public interest involved, the High Court accordingly dismissed the Writ Petition.
Cause Title: Rajinder Nischal v. Union of India Through Its Secretary & Anr.
