Delay In Case Disposal Can’t Be Solely Attributed To Advocate: Karnataka HC [Read Order]

Delay In Case Disposal Can’t Be Solely Attributed To Advocate: Karnataka HC [Read Order]

The Indian Judiciary is overburdened with number of cases and it is a well-known fact that there is a huge delay in disposal of the cases for the reasons countless, the bench said.

The Karnataka High Court, while dismissing a plea of some advocates seeking removal of a government-appointed advocate, observed that the disposal of the case or delay therein cannot be solely attributed to any one advocate appearing for a litigant in the court of law.

Advocate C Jagadish was engaged by the State to represent it in various cases relating to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe persons in the state. Eleven lawyers approached the high court complaining that various cases relating to fake Caste Certificate were pending for long and the said cases are not being decided for long and that the government-appointed advocate has not been able to deliver the proper work efficiency.

Rejecting this contention, Justice Vineet Kothari observed: “There are several factors which determine the numbers and the disposal of the cases as it is. The Indian Judiciary is overburdened with number of cases and it is a well-known fact that there is a huge delay in disposal of the cases for the reasons countless.”

The court also took note of the submission on the part of the state that it is satisfied with the services of the 5th respondent and it is a matter of private contract between the state and the advocate, and said: “a particular Advocate engaged by the State cannot be blamed for delay in disposal of the cases, as is sought to be made out by the petitioners. The petitioners do not have any locus-standi to issue any kind of Certificate or brand any Advocate like 5th Respondent. Whether he is efficient or inefficient, whether his services are proper or not, it is for the State to decide. It is a choice of the State to select its own Advocate. It is none of the business of the Court much less of the complaining petitioners - Advocates to interfere in the same".

Whether he is efficient or inefficient, whether his services are proper or not, it is for the State to decide. It is a choice of the State to select its own Advocate. It is none of the business of the Court much less of the complaining petitioners - Advocates to interfere in the same,” the court remarked.

Read the Order Here