Inefficient Case Management By State Law Officers Impedes Justice: Allahabad High Court Directs Principal Secretary (Law) To Reform Procedures

"The office of learned Advocate General, learned Additional Advocate General, learned Chief Standing Counsel and learned Government Advocate is not a matter of status or privilege. It is a responsibility entrusted to an advocate, to defend the officers of the Government engaged in their day-to-day work." Allahabad High Court, in a scathing critique of current administrative practices, held that the systemic failure of the State to effectively manage legal representation and case allocation in the High Court is a recurring impediment to the administration of justice.

Presiding over a writ petition, Justice Vinod Diwakar observed that the practice of assigning cases at the last minute and separating the drafting of pleadings from the actual representation in court is a mechanical, non-accountable process that prevents effective assistance to the court.

Lack of Accountability in State Representation

The Court noted that it has become an established practice for counter-affidavits to be drafted by counsel who never appear in court, while the counsel who actually represent the State are often unacquainted with the file or the previous history of the case. This disconnect ensures that the government representative is often unable to address queries or provide substantive responses, leading to routine and mechanical denials in affidavits.

"The counsel who prepares the counter affidavit is not aware of the deliberations that have taken place in Court, of the arguments advanced by the petitioner, or of the queries put by the Court; nor will he be present to assist the Court when the matter is next listed," the Court remarked.

Systemic Failure in Case Allocation

The Court highlighted that the current practice of distributing case files via a "Court In-charge" system on the day of the hearing—or during the hearing itself—leaves no time for the assigned counsel to apply their mind to the facts. This lack of preparation forces government counsel to rely on mere oral instructions from departments, often resulting in repetitive adjournments and a waste of judicial time.

"The files being handed over on each date in Court, no time whatever is left for preparation. On most occasions, the learned Government Counsel is able only to read out what is contained in the instructions, and is unable to address the issue when confronted with the contents so read."

Absence of Institutional Mechanism

The Court emphasized that representing the State is a grave responsibility, not a matter of privilege. The bench observed that the current ad-hoc mechanism lacks a professional standard, as there is no consistent system for assigning cases in advance, briefing counsel, or maintaining the custody and record of government files.

"The State is expected to maintain an institutional mechanism whereby every case pending before the Court is allocated well in advance, the relevant record is made available to the Government Counsel concerned within a reasonable time, and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State is fully briefed as to the facts, the pleadings, the previous orders and the stand of the State."

Direction to the Principal Secretary (Law)

Recognizing that individual counsel are not solely to blame for these structural deficiencies, the Court directed the Principal Secretary (Law) of the Government of Uttar Pradesh to personally examine the matter. The Principal Secretary has been ordered to file a personal affidavit addressing specific procedural failures, including the rationale for separating drafting and appearance panels, the lack of advance file allocation, and the feasibility of appointing departmental liaison officers at Prayagraj to bridge the communication gap.

The Court has further requested an explanation regarding the financial and administrative impediments to implementing a reformative policy that ensures accountability and timely, effective representation. Pending the next hearing, the Court has stayed any recovery proceedings initiated by the respondents. The matter is set for further hearing on September 15, 2026.

Date of Decision: 01 September 2026