The Allahabad High Court has expressed its strong displeasure with the Uttar Pradesh government’s Law Remembrancer (LR) for failing to provide a status update on a proposed group-insurance scheme for government advocates. During a hearing on Tuesday, the Lucknow bench issued a “stern” ultimatum, granting the official exactly one week—and no further extensions—to file a formal response before the matter returns to court on May 25.
The order, passed by a bench comprising Justices Rajan Roy and Manjive Shukla, stems from a suo motu public interest litigation (PIL) initiated by the court itself. The proceedings are focused on establishing robust insurance coverage and enhancing financial assistance for the legal community across the state.
The court’s frustration centers on a lack of compliance with a previous directive issued nearly a year ago. On May 30, 2024, the court had ordered the state to consider a group-insurance scheme specifically for government advocates.
In recent proceedings, it became clear that the Law Remembrancer was not only behind schedule but was initially unaware that the May 2024 order even existed. Despite being given a deadline of May 12 to rectify this and file a response, no documentation was submitted by the time the case was called on Tuesday.
“The court took a stern view of the failure,” the bench noted, emphasizing that the repeated disregard for judicial directions would no longer be tolerated.
While the government faces pressure to insure its own legal counsel, the situation for private practitioners remains equally precarious. The court was informed that insurance proposals for lawyers not affiliated with the government have reached a stalemate due to financial hurdles.
According to S. Chandra, President of the Oudh Bar Association, the primary obstacle is the cost of premiums. With approximately 14,000 members in the association, an insurance provider has quoted an annual premium of ₹4,999 per advocate. This brings the total estimated burden to nearly ₹7 crore—an amount the association stated is currently unaffordable.
To bridge the gap, the Oudh Bar Association is exploring alternative methods of support. Chandra informed the bench that the association’s executive body is currently considering a proposal to increase financial assistance under its existing crisis-support scheme. This plan is expected to be presented to the court following consultations with senior advocates.
As the May 25 hearing approaches, all eyes are on the Law Remembrancer’s office. The court’s “one week and no more” mandate signals that the bench is prepared to take further action if the state continues to stall on providing a safety net for the legal professionals serving its courts.
