Allahabad HC Decries Nepotism in State Counsel Appointments; Orders Merit-Based Reforms
Allahabad High Court Flags “Entitlement Culture” in State Counsel Appointments; Calls for Transparent and Merit-Based Process
In Smt. Jubeda Begum & Anr. v. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Anr., the Allahabad High Court strongly criticized the prevalent “entitlement culture” in the appointment of legal counsels to State-run corporations, observing that such practices undermine both governance and the justice delivery system.
The case arose from a petition filed by the family of a deceased driver of the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC). Earlier, the High Court had remanded their matter to the Labour Court after setting aside an ex-parte award. However, due to professional negligence, the Corporation’s counsel erroneously represented before the Labour Court that the High Court had allowed the Corporation’s petition. This led to the closure of proceedings, prompting the family to approach the High Court again.
A Bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot expressed concern that such lapses are not isolated incidents but reflective of a systemic malaise in the appointment of counsels to State corporations. The Court observed:
“Appointment of meritorious counsels by a fair and transparent procedure is central to good governance of a government corporation and is consistent with the mandate of constitutional law. Hitherto, an entitlement culture has taken root in appointments of counsels for State corporations where only scions of influential families are given opportunities.”
The Court noted that young and first-generation advocates, lacking political or familial connections, are often excluded from consideration. It emphasized that modes of appointment based on “accidents of inheritance” rather than merit are unjust, disheartening, and detrimental to the rule of law.
The Bench further highlighted that many such appointed counsels do not even appear in court themselves, delegating matters to others, which compromises the quality of representation and weakens the justice delivery system.
The Court warned:
“The unjust nature of the system has serious adverse consequences on governance by law. The justice delivery system becomes weak and unable to serve justice to the common citizens due to systemic deficiencies.”
Court’s Directions and Recommendations
The High Court called for a complete overhaul of the appointment process for State counsels. It suggested the following measures:
- Transparent and Merit-Based Selection: Appointments should prioritize competence, integrity, and performance rather than influence.
- Incognito Observation: Officials of the Corporation may discreetly attend court proceedings to assess advocates’ conduct and capabilities.
- Checks and Balances: A rigorous evaluation system must be introduced, possibly including formal interaction with concerned authorities, to ensure professional competence and ethical standards.
The Court also directed the UPSRTC Board to convene a meeting and formulate a comprehensive scheme addressing these concerns. This scheme is to be finalized and presented to the Court by the next date of hearing, 22 September 2025.