HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Subedar Yadav .....Petitioner(s)

Versus State Of Uttar Pradesh And 4 Others .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashish Malhotra Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

Court No. - 1 HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

HON'BLE SWARUPAMA CHATURVEDI, J.

When this case was earlier called out, we were informed that instructions were yet to be received as no response was there available and hence we took exception of the working of the officer concerned and we directed for appearance of the District Magistrate concerned to explain his conduct but now Mr. P.K. Shahi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has stood up after 2-3 cases to make a mention that in fact the instructions were sent on whatsapp of his cell phone but it could not be downloaded and print out could not be taken in time, therefore, mistakenly statement was made before the Court that instructions were not received.

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.

We have also noticed that file records of standing counsel also are not updated. We have also noticed that Standing Counsel are not fully aware of the fact details to update the Court only for the reason that files are not sent to them in advance and further proper upkeep of records have surfaced out as one of the reason causing inconvenience to the Court in its administration of justice. In this, Court Mr. Amit Saxena learned Senior Advocate and Additional Advocate General, learned Chief Standing Counsel and Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned Chief Standing Counsel who are present have all argued that all this attributable to shortage of Class III and IV staff in the State Law Office. He submits that it is after the State Government sanctions or grants permission that the recruitment process is undertaken. 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.

Some of the State Law Officers as well as the Additional Advocate General disputes that a large number of vacancies have remained vacant over the years yet no appointments have been made till date. Statement has come from the State Counsel that Advocate General has already undertaken an exercise in the matter. We have been apprised of an order passed by Hon'ble Single Judge in the matter of Kapil Kumar v. State of U.P. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 28388 of 2025 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.

Court matters must be kept on top priority for disposal and Court means both Bench and Bar and Bar would definitely include State Counsel.

When we want speedy and efficacious justice delivery system then system must be in place. A system if paralyzed for either not filling up the vacancies in time or for want of vacancies, the justice delivery system will certainly fail.

In the circumsta