Be politically correct while making HC submissions: Government to lawyers

The state has issued instructions to government pleaders to exercise caution while making submissions on its behalf in courts. The move comes after a government pleader — in telling the high court that the government affidavit could not be filed in the concerned case because there was no clarity about which department was responsible for it — upset the court. The state has now asked its lawyers to consult the law and judiciary department in the event they are confused about whom to approach. A government resolution (GR) has been issued by the law and judiciary department, asking government pleaders not to make statements such as the one made by AGP Imam Calcuttawala in the concerned public interest litigation (PIL).

The GR says: “In case they are unable to readily ascertain the concerned administrative department, they are advised to consult the Maharashtra Government Rules of Business for guidance. Secondly, they may approach the principal secretary/secretary of the department which is apparently impleaded in the cause title or prima facie appears to be concerned with the matter. Thirdly, they may approach the law and judiciary department if the confusion still persists. However, in any case, there should be no recurrence of making such a casual submission that the government is unable to understand which department is the concerned administrative department.”

Ms Calcuttawala on June 15 had appeared for the state in connection with the PIL filed in 2013 by social worker, Nazir Noor Ali, questioning the validity of Darul Qazas (personal law courts) that are permitted by the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) to dispense justice in civil and matrimonial disputes in the Muslim community. The PIL demanded that Darul Qazas across Maharashtra be shut down and declared unconstitutional. On April 1 this year, the high court gave the state government one month’s time to file its reply to the PIL with an observation that: “Only by way of indulgence and last chance, we grant time of one month to the state government to file its reply.”

However, on the day of hearing on June 15, Ms Calcuttawala informed the court that “the state government is not in a position to file a reply in compliance with the order dated April 1, 2016, as it is unable to understand as to which department will deal with this petition.” The HC found her statement highly objectionable and issued show cause notice to the chief secretary of the state, asking him why action should not be taken against him under the Contempt of Courts Act.