Supreme Court Raps Madhya Pradesh Government Counsels Over Chronic Absence

The Supreme Court has pulled up the State of Madhya Pradesh over the "everyday" non-appearance and lack of preparation of its panel advocates during court proceedings.

While hearing a criminal appeal, the Court noted that state counsels routinely fail to appear when cases are called or show complete ignorance about their matters, prompting the Court to ask the Chief Secretary, Law Secretary, and Advocate General to relook at the continuity of the current panel.

Furthermore, the Apex Court questioned a 2011 state notification exempting the Lokayukta’s Special Police Establishment from the Right to Information (RTI) Act under Section 24(4), noting that the state has failed to bring anything on record to prove how the Lokayukta qualifies as an "intelligence and security organisation."

The bench comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar observed, "It is experienced that on behalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh, counsels are not appearing in Court when the cases are called upon...The Court was required to wait for some time and later the case was taken in second round. In this case also, when the arguments were closed and the Court sought the presence of the counsel for the State, then upon calling Mr. Abhimanu Singh, counsel appeared and shown ignorance about the case. On apprising that the counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State by Mr. Pashupati Nath Razdan, then he was informed...It is to say that this is not an isolated instance of non-appearance on behalf of the counsel for the State of Madhya Pradesh. It is happening every day as and when the case of State of Madhya Pradesh is listed, the counsel are not appearing and on being called, they used to come and attend. Such endeavour of the Advocates in the panel on behalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh cannot be appreciated."

AOR Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar appeared for the Appellant, while AOR Rajeev Singh appeared for the Respondents.

The appeal challenged an order passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Jabalpur Bench) in a Writ Petition by which the High Court had quashed orders passed by the Assistant Public Information Officer and the Chief Information Commissioner, directing the state body to supply the requested information and imposing a cost of ₹5,000. The said order was assailed on the pretext that, as per the Notification of the State Government, exemption is granted to the Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment of Lokayukta Organisation, however, without taking note of the said notification directions have been issued.

The Court said, "Sub-section (4) of Section 24 of the RTI Act further specifies that the provisions of the Act shall not apply to such intelligence and security organisations established by the State Government if notified in the Official Gazette. Thus, for issuance of the notification of exemption under Section 24(4), it is incumbent to understand how Lokayukta established is an intelligence and security organisation; but nothing has been brought on record. In absence, the notification dated 25.08.2011 is contrary to the spirit of Section 24(1) read with Section 24(4) of the RTI Act. The counter affidavit filed by the State is silent on this point, however, response of the State Government, if any, may be filed, otherwise such notification do not have any sanction of law."

It noted that state counsels routinely fail to appear when cases are called out, citing multiple instances from the same day's proceedings where advocates were either absent or entirely ignorant of the matters. It was also recorded that one panel advocate dynamically recused himself during the interaction, a conflict which was not officially recorded.

"Let a copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary, the Advocate General and Law Secretary of Madhya Pradesh to relook about the panel and consider how far the advocates who are engaged by the State, if not representing, can be continued in the panel. We are not issuing any direction in this regard, and leaving it on the discretion of the State to decide about their representation in the Supreme Court", the Court said.

The Supreme Court directed that a copy of the order be dispatched to the Chief Secretary, the Advocate General, and the Law Secretary of Madhya Pradesh to evaluate the utility and continuity of the current advocate panel.

The Advocate General of Madhya Pradesh has been requested to personally clarify how the Lokayukta functions as an intelligence or security organization and to present arguments on the next date of hearing.

Accordingly, the matter was listed for a further date.

Cause Title: Special Police Establishment v. Kamta Prasad Mishra & Ors. [Criminal Appeal No(s). 3743/2024]

Appearances:
Appeallant: AOR Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar

Respondents: AOR Rajeev Singh, Advocate Abhimanu Singh and Advocate Abhinav Shrivastva

Click here to read/download the Order