Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

J U D G M E N T Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar, J Leave granted.

These appeals are from a judgment of the Allahabad High Court holding that Government Advocates and Standing Counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh cannot be allowed to appear and defend Government officials against who notices for contempt of court are issued. In the Allahabad High Court advocates for the State appearing in criminal matters are designated as Government Advocates while advocates on behalf of the State appearing in civil matters are designated as Standing Counsel. The High Court has held that neither category of advocates can appear in contempt proceedings on behalf of an alleged contemnor who is an official of the State Government. The Allahabad High Court has further held that no monetary help from the State Exchequer can be extended to such Government officials towards litigation expenses in contempt proceedings. These expenses are to be incurred personally by the Government officials concerned which can be subsequently reimbursed to them if they are honourably exonerated in contempt proceedings. The High Court has also struck down a Government Order date 12th of September, 1996 issued by the Special Secretary and Additional Legal Remembrancer, Government of U.P. under which a panel of Advocates has been nominated for Government of U.P. and its officers and/or employees. The High Court has struck down the names of the two It has also held as of no consequence, the relevant provisions in the Legal Remembrancer's Manual permitting Government Advocates and/or Standing Counsel to appear in such matters.

It is on account of the mistaken notion that the State has to prosecute an action for contempt of court against the contemnor that the High Court, in the present case, came to the conclusion that the Advocates appointed by the State to represent it in courts of law cannot appear for an officer of the sTate who is charged with contempt. It is, therefore, open to the State to nominate its advocates to appear for its officials in contempt proceedings. In fact, in the case of the highest law officer of the State - the Advocate General, this Court, in the case of T.C. Hingorani v. G.P. Misra (1967 Law Reports Lucknow, page 662), held that the State Government could assign to the Advocate General the duty to appear in a contempt proceeding for a contemnor, and the Advocate General was entitled to so appear. This has been reiterated in Mohd. Iqbal Khandey v. Abdul Majid Rather [(1994) 4 SCC 34] where the Court held that there was no justification for the court to direct the counsel for the appellant, namely the Additional Advocate General, not to appear for the appellant or to direct that he should instead, assist the court.

It is possible that there might be situations where the Advocate General may decline to appear for an alleged contemnor who is an officer or employee of the State. Section 15, for example, of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which deals with cognizance of criminal contempt, provides that in the case of a criminal contempt, other than a contempt referred to in Section 14, the Supreme Court or the High Court may take action on its own motion or on a motion made by (a) the Advocate General, or (b) any other person with the consent in writing of the Advocate General, or (c) in relation to the High Court for the Union Territory of Delhi, such law officer as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf, or any other person, with the consent in writing of such law officer. In the case of any criminal contempt of a subordinate court, the High Court may take action on a reference made to it by the subordinate court or on a motion made by the advocate General or, in relation to a Union Territory, such law officer as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf. The Advocate General or the law officer concerned many in such a case decline to appear for the alleged contemnor in a criminal contempt case.

Our attention was also drawn to Rule 6 of the Allahabad High Court Rules framed under Section 23 of the Contempt of Courts Act which provides for a notice of a criminal contempt being served on the Government Advocate an interested party in the contempt proceedings. Moreover, the present case deals not with criminal contempt but with civil contempt.

The state is, therefore, entitled to authorise an law officer to appear in cases where the contempt consists of disobedience of an order of the court by an official or employee of the State. The further directions given by the High Court that in all such cases the legal expenses should be borne personally by the alleged contemnor except when he is honourably acquitted also appear to be unwarranted. The High Court seems to have been moved into issuing such a direction because of the large number of contempt cases pending in that court against the officers of the State for their failure to carry out the orders of the Court. It is indeed a disturbing situation. Where the conduct of the concerned official is contumacious, the court can direct him to pay costs personally, if the facts and circumstances of the case so warrant. But a general direction of the kind given by the High Court cannot be sustained.