In the Instant matter of Rajinder Nishchal v Union of India The petitioner, an advocate, filed a petition under Article 226 challenging the process of appointing lawyers to represent the Union of India, claiming that the size of the panel representing the Government of India is not fixed, that the Government does not accept applications for the appointment or renewal of the panel, and that the selection of lawyers as Government Counsel is illegal. The Petitioner was a Government Counsel who had been appointed by the Government of India, and at the time of his appointment neither a definite panel of Advocates to represent the Government of India nor a written examination of the Petitioner had been required.
Observation of the court
A division bench of Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad of the Delhi High Court rejected the PIL and ruled that the current plea served the petitioner’s vendetta rather than the interests of the public at large.
The Court noted that the costs for the solicitors hired by the Government of India are determined case by case. As a result, the procedure that the petitioner, in this case, is now criticising has benefited him personally. The Court further highlighted that a party to a dispute is always free to select an attorney to represent him and that the Government of India, one of the biggest parties to a dispute in the nation, is free to select its attorneys. The Court concluded that the current petition has no public interest and has solely been submitted to upend the status quo of the petitioner.
CASE NAME – Rajinder Nishchal v Union of India, W.P.(C) 10431 of 2022