'Proper Assistance Not Being Rendered': Allahabad High Court Flags Inadequate Assistance Being Provided By Government Empaneled Lawyers

The Allahabad High Court has recently expressed concerns over inadequate assistance provided by the lawyers of the panel of the State Government.

In a matter pertaining to recovery under the U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 without any show cause notice, the bench of Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Devendra Singh-I observed

“We are seriously concerned with the present situation in the Establishment of the Advocate General-cum-State Law Officer for the reason that working of the Office has reduced to such a level that proper assistance is not being rendered to the Courts leading to delay in justice.”

On the first date of hearing, the Court had granted time to the Standing Counsel (who is a counsel for the State Government) to obtain instructions in the matter. On the next date, the counsel sought further time to obtain instructions. Two weeks' time was granted by the Court with a warning that serious action would be taken if instructions were not produced.

On the third date of hearing, the Court was informed that instructions were yet to be received. However, when the Court sought to summon the District Magistrate, the Counsel pleaded that the instructions had been received on WhatsApp but could not be printed in time. On ths the Court observed

“While we may find it to be justified reason not to summon the officer concerned but we have been noticing recently that in a number of cases that despite several reminders made by the Standing Counsel of the Court to the authorities, the authorities have not been responding in time.”

The Court was informed that the lack of prior knowledge about the files was due to shortage of Class III and Class IV employees in the office.

“We do not know the modalities that have to be adopted either by the State Government or by the Advocate General, but we certain do not appreciate the way the office of the Advocate General is working. If there is any shortage of staff and the recruitment is not taking place for a long period of time, then it is either the Government to be blamed or the office of the Advocate General but in no circumstance the Court can be forced to wait for instructions and for the proper assistance from Standing Counsel it amounts to interference in the administration of justice and this ultimately leads to further add on the pendency.”

Since the exercise of appointment of the staff was being undertaken by the Advocate General after an order had been passed by the High Court in a bail matter, the Court observed that

“It is unfortunate that when this Court intervened that exercise for recruitment was taken by the Advocate General. Be it Government or Advocate General, if for shortage of staff or for any other inconvenience State Law Officer/ Additional Advocate General fails in making proper arrangement of files by providing enough place and for its upkeep and resultantly the Court is not able to hear the matters for want of proper assistance, it amounts to interference in the administration of justice.”

The Court had directed the State to inform the Court regarding the steps being taken to fill such vacancies. However, on the next date, when the instructions were placed before the Court, it stated that it was “unhappy and unfortunte” that the Advocate General had not replied to the State regarding vacancies in the office and that he was not present before the Court, nor any Additional Advocate General was present before the Court.

On the last date, the Additional Advocate General was pointedly asked about the vacancies, but he could not place the exact numbers or if the advertisement for filling up the vacancies had been published. Expressing concerns over the affairs of the office of Advocate General-cum-State Law Officer, the Court directed that the U.P. Subordinate Services Selection Commission, Lucknow be made party to the petition and apprise the Court regarding the status of the recruitment process.

The case is directed to be listed on 17.04.2026.

Case Title: Subedar Yadav v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 4 Others

Click Here To Read/Download Order