Influential get appointed as lawyers of State corporations; first-gen lawyers ignored: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court recently observed that an “entitlement culture” has taken root in appointment of lawyers in State corporations where only “scions of influential families” are given opportunities to be on the panel of such corporations [Smt. Jubeda Begum and Another vs UP State Road Transport and Another].

Justice Ajay Bhanot further observed that the first-generation lawyers often do not get the opportunity to represent State corporations despite them being competent and industrious with unimpeachable integrity.

“Counsel of the aforesaid class rarely get a look in when appointments of State counsel or counsel for the Corporations are made as they are not able to curry any influence with powers that be. Modes of appointment of counsel which accord weight to accidents of inheritance and neglect achievements of merit cannot be countenanced in State Corporations,” the Court observed.

It added that in the current system, young first-generation lawyers not well connected politically or not belonging to influential families “are invariably overlooked” in appointments as counsel for the State or the State-run corporations despite their competence and scholarship.

“The failure of the State instrumentalities to discern merit in such class of counsels, can be disheartening to young first generation lawyers who are neither connected politically nor belong to families which are positioned high up in the power pyramid. Such an environment prevents members of the Bar from developing and contributing to the rule of law,” the Court said.

The Court was dealing with a case filed by the family of a former driver of Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (UPSTRC). The High Court had earlier set aside an ex-parte award favouring the deceased driver’s family members and remanded the matter to the labour court.

However, the UPSRTC in an application wrongly informed the labour court that its petition against the award had been allowed and thus, the matter be closed. Accordingly, the labour court closed the proceedings filed by the family members.

Hearing a petition moved by the family members, the High Court in April this year took a serious view of the matter. In an order passed on August4, Justice Bhanot noted that the entire episode was a result of the professional negligence of counsel at the labour court. 

The single-judge then observed that appointment of meritorious counsel by a fair and transparent procedure is central to good governance of a government corporation and is consistent with the mandate of constitutional law.

On the appointment of influential counsel on the panel of corporations, the Court said there was a decay in the system where the offices are appropriated by those who can “peddle influences in the corridors of power.”

It added that this culture of appointments has degraded the professional representation of the corporations and that the Court often has found that the counsel “appointed through the spoils system” receive the notices and do not appear in courts. They simply delegate the files entrusted to them, the Court said.

On the consequences of overlooking first-generation lawyers, the Court said,

“The unjust nature of the system has serious adverse consequences on governance by law. The justice delivery system becomes weak and unable to serve justice to the common citizens due to systemic deficiencies.”

The Court stressed that the responsibility of all State authorities is to uphold the rule of law and fairness, adding that selection of counsel can only be done by “independent and dispassionate observance of court proceedings” by officials of the Corporation who are regularly “present incognito” in court.

“The procedure thereafter demands a rigorous system of checks and balances into the professional competence and integrity of counsels. This may also require a formal interface with the authorities concerned. However, selection methods are matter of details which the authorities can evolve based on the institutional experience as well,” it added.

In the present case, the Managing Director of UPSRTC assured the Court that all endeavors shall be made by the Corporation to ensure that the best talent from the Bar is given a look in while making such appointments. 

“A system which adopts transparent procedures, promotes merit and gives a fair look in to young first generation lawyers while appointing counsels to represent UPSRTC in Courts has to be devised by the Corporation,” the Court stressed.

Accordingly, it directed that a meeting of the Board of UPSRTC be held and a scheme to tackle the issues raised be finalised to be presented before the Court on the next date of hearing on September 22.

Advocate Yogesh Kumar Vaish represented the petitioners.

Advocates Sheo Ram Singh and Sunil Kumar Misra represented the respondents. 

[Read Order]