Allahabad High Court Suggests Engaging Tech-Savvy Young Lawyers To Boost Digital Efficiency In Govt Advocate Office
To boost digital efficiency, the Allahabad High Court has suggested that the Uttar Pradesh government should engage tech-savvy young advocates and fresh law graduates as honorary Research Associates in the office of the Government Advocate and in the Joint Director, Prosecution, High Court.A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal made this suggestion, noting that it is the need of the hour...
To boost digital efficiency, the Allahabad High Court has suggested that the Uttar Pradesh government should engage tech-savvy young advocates and fresh law graduates as honorary Research Associates in the office of the Government Advocate and in the Joint Director, Prosecution, High Court.
A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal made this suggestion, noting that it is the need of the hour to ramp up digitisation efforts and urgently address severe staff shortages in the office of the Government Advocate.
The Court was essentially hearing a bail application in which the investigating officer failed to provide the necessary bail instructions to the Government Advocate's officer for nearly a month. Due to the delay, the Court had earlier summoned the Commissioner of Police, Agra, and the Director of Prosecution.
Eventually, on March 19, the Additional Police Commissioner of Agra appeared before the HC virtually and filed a compliance affidavit stating that the negligent investigating officer had been suspended and a departmental inquiry had been ordered against him.
An assurance was also given to the HC that, in the future, no such negligence will occur, and the Commissioner of Police will ensure the early sending of instructions to the Government Advocate's office.
On the other hand, the Additional Advocate General Anoop Trivedi also informed that he has instructed the office of the Government Advocate to remain alert regarding the instructions in bail matters, and letters should also be sent to the District Police Chief in this regard.
He further informed that presently, copies of the criminal writ and habeas corpus are being scanned in the office of the Government Office, and as of date, bail applications are not being scanned because of insufficient staff.
He further submits that whenever sufficient staff are available, bail applications shall also be scanned and digitised.
The bench was also apprised that an E-Manu App has been prepared to send alerts and provide access to digitised data to all stakeholders.
Taking note of these submissions, the bench observed that the UP Government should increase the staff strength in the office of the Government Advocate.
The bench said that this would ensure that real-time data is fed, as well as other criminal files, including bail applications, are scanned, so that the required instructions can be obtained from the police and other agencies expeditiously.
The bench asked the Principal Secretary (Law), UP, as well as the Chief Secretary, Government of UP, to look into the matter and provide efficient staff for the office of the Government Advocate, as well as timely feeding of data on the E-Manu App.
"...for increasing efficiency in the Government Advocate's office as well as in the office of Joint Director, Prosecution, High Court Allahabad, young Advocates or fresh Law Graduates, who are well-versed with the computer and digital technology BAIL No. 6405 of 2026 2 should be engaged on honorary basis as Research Associates just like State of Odisha (Office of Advocate General)," the bench suggested.
On the merits of the case, the Court allowed the bail plea filed by the robbery accused Babloo Yadav alias Billa. His counsel argued that he was not named in the initial FIR and was falsely implicated based on an alleged recovery of five hundred rupees, a country-made pistol, and a scrap bag.
Evaluating the facts, the complicity of the accused, and the nature of the evidence, the High Court granted him bail.
Case title - Babloo Yadav @ Billa vs. State of U.P 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 119
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 119