States While Changing Panel Of Advocates Must Continue Old Panel For At Least Six Months To Ensure Court’s Functioning Is Not Adversely Affected: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court recently directed States and Union Territories to continue with the old empanelled Advocates for at least six weeks so that the Courts are not forced to grant adjournments while empanelling new Advocates. The Court observed that States and the Union Territories must ensure that the functioning of the Court is not adversely affected in the process.
The Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, while deciding a bail application, observed, “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 06 weeks so that the Courts are not forced to grant adjournments.”
Advocate Aadil Singh Boparai appeared on behalf of the Petitioner whereas AAG Sanjeev Uniyal appeared for the State of Uttrakhand.
AAG Uniyal, for the State of Uttrakhand, submitted that there was no change in the panel of Advocates for the last seven to eight years, therefore, the change has taken place.
Consequently, the Court observed, “During the last few months, this Court has 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. Therefore, this Court is required to grant adjournments from time to time on the ground of change.”
The Court also directed the Registry to circulate the copy of the order to the Standing Counsels representing all the States and Union Territories.
The matter pertained to the offences alleged against the Accused-petitioner under Sections 420, 409 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Sections 3, 4, 6, 9 and 10 of the Uttar Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1988.
Accordingly, the Court made the observations and directed the States to comply with the order.
Cause Title: Sachin Kumar v. State Of Uttarakhand
Appearances:
Petitioner: Advocates Aadil Singh Boparai, Sumer Singh Boparai, Gurlabh Singh Bhaika Sidhu, Srishti Khanna, Vaibhav Dabbas, Sidhant Saraswat, Sachin Kumar, Amarjeet Singh.
Respondent: AAG Sanjeev Uniyal, Advocates Namita Choudhary and Srishti Choudhary.
