Act of Uttarakhand advocate general, govt advocate ‘contemptuous’: Court

The single bench of Justice Lokpal Singh while hearing a criminal writ petition regarding a rape case, stated that the act of advocate general of Uttarakhand SN Babulkar, and the government advocate was “contemptuous”, adding “it has warned them that it will not permit them to lead arguments in such a way (in the case)”.

The order also stated “this court is not initiating any contempt proceedings against them and has simply warned them not to repeat the same mistake in future”.

The petition was filed to seek further investigation in a FIR lodged in 2017 in Udham Singh Nagar as the investigating (IO) of the case had failed to record the statement of the victim under Section 164 CrPC.

The case was heard on May 11 but the copy of the order was made available on Wednesday. HT has a copy of the order.

Justice Lokpal Singh in his order noted that the he was surprised to see that while the case was being argued by PS Bohara, assistant government advocate (AGA), the advocate general of Uttarakhand without taking arguments in his hand and without requesting the court, was willing to argue the case.

Justice Singh in his order stated that Babulkar intervened in the case and submitted that the question of maintainability of the writ petition can be raised at any point of time as it goes to the root of the case.

“Such practice of intervening in the arguments is not a happy practice. The intervention of SN Babulkar, advocate general and GS Sandhu, government advocate in support of the arguments advanced by Bohara (AGA) amounts to causing hindrance in the ongoing proceedings of the court and is a deliberate attempt to divert the issue and interference in the dispensation of justice, which amounts to contempt of the court. As learned advocate general, is present in this court and is not ready and willing to argue this case, it appears to this court that he has come to this court to disrupt the court proceedings,” the order said.

The order further stated that the court was surprised to see that SK Chaudhary, deputy advocate general, who was appearing in this case since beginning, had been withdrawn and PS Bohara, AGA, had been given the task to argue the case.

“Apart from this, learned Advocate General and government advocate are also present in the court room. Why are they present in the Court room, when they don’t have to argue any other case? The presence of SN Babulkar, advocate general is definitely for some hidden reason,” the order stated.

Justice Lokpal Singh stated that, “They may appoint any law officer, on whom they have full confidence to argue the case before the court, but this court cannot permit large number of law officers to argue a particular case in piecemeal of rival submissions. ….However, this court is not initiating any contempt proceedings against them and has simply warned them not to repeat the same mistake in future”, the order stated.

The bench maintained that had the orders passed by the court been complied with in letter and spirit, the state law officers must not have raised the issue of maintainability of writ petition without there being any defence taken in the counter affidavit to this effect.

“In the considered opinion of this court, the writ petition for the relief sought is maintainable, more particularly, when there are allegations against the IO that he is hand in gloves with the accused person. The allegations made in the writ petition have not been denied yet”, the order stated.