The Supreme Court recently raised concerns over the Delhi Government and its Forest Department engaging separate legal representatives for the same case. The issue arose when the lawyer appearing for the Forest Department claimed that he was not representing the Delhi Government. This led the court to question how a state government and one of its departments could have two different advocates.
“We wonder how the State Government and one department of the State Government can engage two separate Advocates,” remarked the bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan.
The case pertains to the expansion of green cover in the National Capital Territory of Delhi. The Supreme Court had previously directed the Delhi Government to submit an affidavit detailing any actions taken concerning non-forest lands listed in the application.
Read Also:- The Art of Drafting: Supreme Court Judges Share Insights on Its Impact in Litigation
On January 17, 2025, the Supreme Court gave the Delhi Government a three-week deadline to file the required affidavit. However, during a subsequent hearing, the court noted that its directive had not been followed. When the bench sought an explanation, the lawyer representing the Forest Department insisted that he was not appearing for the Delhi Government but solely for the department.
This statement astonished the court, leading to further scrutiny of how separate legal representations were assigned within the same government body.
Expressing disbelief over this situation, the Court questioned, “How can two different advocates represent the same government in the same case?”
In response to this irregularity, the Supreme Court issued a strong directive:
“The Registry is directed to immediately communicate this order to the Chief Secretary of the Government of Delhi, who shall personally ensure compliance with our order dated 17th January, 2025, within a maximum period of three weeks from today.”
Read Also:- Supreme Court: Handwriting Expert's Opinion Must Be Treated with Caution Under Section 45 Evidence Act
The bench further clarified that failure to comply with the order within the stipulated timeframe would result in serious legal consequences.
“If compliance is not made within the time stipulated, an action under the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, will be initiated against the concerned officers of the Government of Delhi.”
This ruling underscores the judiciary's insistence on uniform legal representation for government bodies to avoid confusion and accountability issues. The Supreme Court’s warning of contempt action highlights the importance of adhering to judicial orders without delay.
This case sets a precedent for state governments and their departments, reinforcing the principle that a single legal representation should be maintained for better coordination and compliance with court orders.
