The Allahabad High Court has raised serious concerns over the manner in which cases are allocated to Government Counsel representing the State of Uttar Pradesh. Justice Vinod Diwakar said the recurring practice of handing over files shortly before or during hearings leaves counsel with little time to prepare and can obstruct the proper administration of justice.
Background of the Case
The observations came while hearing Neetu Agarwal & Another v. State of U.P. and 5 Others, Writ-C No. 26463 of 2026. The matter was initially listed on July 14, 2026, when a Standing Counsel appeared for the State. The Court later required the personal appearance of the Sub-Registrar, Balrampur Sadar, who appeared on July 28. On August 6, the State was granted two weeks to file its counter affidavit.
When the matter came up again, the Court was informed that the counter affidavit had been drafted by a Chief Standing Counsel-V who was not posted in that Court and had not appeared in the case. Justice Diwakar noted that this was not an isolated instance.
Court's Observation
The Court found that the arrangement creates a gap between the lawyer preparing the counter affidavit and the lawyer appearing before the Court. The counsel appearing may not know the record or instructions behind the affidavit, while the counsel who prepared it may be unaware of the arguments and questions raised during earlier hearings.
The Court observed:
“The solution lies in framing a policy, and in laying down a procedure to regulate the work of the Law Officers, coupled with the fixing of accountability and the imparting of sustained training programmes through an inclusive approach.”
Justice Diwakar further pointed out that files are often distributed in Court on the date of hearing, sometimes during the hearing itself. According to the Court, this leaves virtually no time for Government Counsel to study the pleadings, previous orders and relevant records.
The Court stressed that Government Counsel represents the State and must assist the Court fairly, responsibly and effectively. It said proper preparation, access to the complete record and knowledge of earlier proceedings are basic requirements of State litigation.
Court's Decision
The High Court directed the Principal Secretary, Law Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, to personally examine the issue and file an affidavit explaining the existing system for nomination and allocation of cases, the practice of separate counsel preparing counter affidavits, changes of counsel, file custody, accountability and related financial and procedural issues.
The Court also asked whether liaison officers could be appointed at Prayagraj to coordinate instructions electronically between Government Counsel and departments. The Principal Secretary was directed to appear on the next date, either physically or through video conferencing. The Court clarified that no adverse opinion had been formed against him or any Law Officer.
On the merits of the case, any recovery by the respondents was directed to remain in abeyance until the next hearing.
The matter was listed for September 15, 2026
Case Details
Case Title: Neetu Agarwal & Another v. State of U.P. and 5 Others
Case Number: Writ-C No. 26463 of 2026
Judge: Justice Vinod Diwakar
Decision Date: September 1, 2026
