In a move that could spark another face-off between the Arvind Kejriwal Government and Raj Niwas, lieutenant-Governor Najeeb Jung has written to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) to declare null and void ab initio the AAP Government’s appointment of panels of advocates-on-record and arguing counsels for the Supreme Court. In a communiqué to the MHA, the lieutenant-Governor has stated that the Delhi Government order was not in accordance with the set procedures laid down in the law. Now, the ball is in the Centre’s court on whether to give green signal to the AAP Government order or declare it “null and void.”
Officials of the Delhi Government say that the State Government has powers to appoint legal counsels of its choice. “The counsels provided by the Centre will remain faithful to it while counsels appointed by State Government will remain faithful to the State Government,” said the officials.
The AAP Government had issued an order on appointment of three advocates-on-record and 12 lawyers for the arguing panel of the apex court in the second week of this month. The order issued by Additional Secretary (law) Ravi Dadhich said that after careful consideration the Government had decided a panel of advocate-on-record and panel of arguing counsels to represent the city Government in the SC.
The order said that Chirag M Shroff, Atul Kumar and Jagjit Singh Chhabra would be advocate-on-record and Siddhartha Dave, Manav Gupta, Kuldip Singh, Amarjit Singh Bedi, Gurmehar Singh Sistani, Yashvardhan, Sunil Sharma, Karuna Nandy, Aishwarya Rao, Naveen R Nath, Niraj Gupta and Charu Walikhanna as the Government’s arguing counsels.
The order also specified that advocate-on-record shall be paid a fixed remuneration of Rs90,000 per month. It said advocates-on-record may also be paid drafting fee of Rs 7,500 for each case. The order made it clear that if the advocate-on-record himself argues the matter, he or she may be paid fee at the rates as approved by the Union law Ministry to Group-A panel Counsel. For the arguing panel, the order said that he or she shall be paid fee as applicable to Group-A counsel in the Supreme Court.
The order said: “Set of cases where a common question of law is involved should not be considered as one for the payment of fee if the facts are substantially different. However, one drafting fee will be payable in the main case and no separate drafting fee will be payable in connected cases with same facts. It is also clarified that in connected matters, no separate appearance fee shall be paid.”
The order said that the panel counsel shall be engaged with the prior approval of the law department of the city government. It said, “The fee bills of the panel counsel shall be verified by the in-charge AOR. And it shall be certified by him that fee being claimed is in accordance with scales of fee as mentioned above. In special cases, the department concerned can engage any lawyer, other than the empanelled advocates in consultation with AOR in-charge. However, prior approval of Minister In-charge of the department shall be necessary.”
A person can be registered as an advocate-on-record if he or she qualifies the requirements as laid down in the Supreme Court of India Rules, 1966. If a lawyer wants to practice as an advocate-on-record in the Supreme Court he or she needs an additional qualification. The advocate has to practice for four years as an advocate and thereafter has to intimate to the Supreme Court that he or she has started taking training with a Senior Advocate-on-record because he or she intends to become an advocate-on-record.