HC raps ‘unprofessional’ handling of cases by State govt counsels

The first bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice PD Audikesavalau, before whom a plea relating to an idol theft came up, was apprised by the government counsel that a status report has been filed of making over the idol to the museum. 

But the bench on finding that the status report has been filed without relying on the acknowledgement of the museum slammed the counsel for behaving in such an unprofessional manner. 

“The State is bound to bleed with such advocates sans professionalism handling cases on its behalf. Mere apologies and constant shaking of the head saying ‘yes’ and then doing the contrary will not help the State’s cause,” the bench led by Chief Justice Banerjee said. 

The outburst was also caused by a woman counsel appearing for the State in another case for failing to serve the counters filed by Tamil Nadu to the petitioners ahead of the case being taken up. With similar situations arising daily with the petitioners not being served with the papers or reports relied on by the government resulting in cases being subjected to undue delay, the bench has been warning of the same. 

But with no change in the manner the government advocates handled cases for the State, especially with them coming unprepared and seeking adjournment followed with constant apologies, the bench sought the Advocate General to infuse professionalism and seriousness among the advocates hired. 

The bench also took strong exception to a counsel appearing for the Union Government seeking time since March 24 to get the counters signed by the officials concerned. While the bench had sought the Finance Secretary to explain by a day as to why appropriate steps should not be taken against the official for treating court orders lightly, it altered its order later following submission from the Additional Solicitor General. 

“An initial order was dictated in court seeking an explanation in the light of the affidavit not having been filed for more than four months. However, since the Additional Solicitor has submitted later in the day that every care would be taken to ensure timelines are adhered to, the explanation is no longer necessary,” the bench held.