The Allahabad High Court has directed the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC) to devise a new system for appointing its legal counsels, emphasizing that the procedure must be transparent, promote merit, and provide fair opportunities to young, first-generation lawyers. Justice Ajay Bhanot issued the directive after observing that the current appointment method is plagued by an “entitlement culture” that favors influence over competence.
The court’s order came during the hearing of Smt. Jubeda Begum And Another vs U.P. State Road Transport And Another (WRITC No. 12610 of 2025). The petition was filed following what the court described as a “prima facie disobedience” of its earlier directions. The UPSRTC informed the court that this failure was due to the “professional negligence or incompetence of the concerned counsels at the Labour Court” and that action had been initiated against them.
Court’s Observations on Counsel Appointments
Justice Bhanot, in a detailed order, heavily criticized the prevailing system for appointing counsels in state-run corporations. The court observed that a culture of entitlement has taken root, where appointments are not based on merit but on influence.
“Hitherto, an entitlement culture has taken root in appointments of counsels for State corporations where only scions of influential families are given opportunities to represent State corporations,” the court noted. It clarified that this observation was not a comment on the competence of any specific counsel but was meant to “highlight the decay in the system where these offices are appropriated by those who can peddle influence in the corridors of power.”
The court underscored that fair and transparent appointment of meritorious counsels is “central to good governance” and consistent with constitutional law. It referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P. (1991), which mandated that the State must adopt a fair and transparent procedure for appointing its counsels, a principle the High Court stated applies equally to government corporations like the UPSRTC.
Plight of First-Generation Lawyers
The court expressed deep concern for competent first-generation lawyers who are often overlooked despite their integrity and industriousness. “Counsels of the aforesaid class rarely get a look in when appointments of State counsels or counsels for the Corporations are made as they are not able to curry any influence with powers that be,” Justice Bhanot observed.
The judgment stated that such a system is unjust and has “serious adverse consequences on governance by law,” ultimately weakening the justice delivery system. The court held that “Modes of appointment of counsels which accord weight to accidents of inheritance and neglect achievements of merit cannot be countenanced in State Corporations.”
The court also took a dim view of the practice of appointed counsels sub-delegating their cases, referencing its earlier order in Gaurav Jain v. State of U.P. and Another (2021), where it had directed the Chief Secretary to issue instructions against this practice.
The Path Forward: A New System for Selection
To remedy the situation, the court suggested a potential method for selection, stating, “Selections of counsels can only be done by independent and dispassionate observance of court proceedings by officials of the Corporation who are regularly present incognito in Court.” This would be followed by a “rigorous system of checks and balances into the professional competence and integrity of counsels.”
Shri Masoom Ali Sarvar, the Managing Director of UPSRTC, who was present in court, assured that the corporation would endeavor to ensure the “best talent from the Bar is given a look in” during appointments.
The Court’s Final Direction
Concluding the matter for the day, the court directed the UPSRTC to hold a Board meeting to finalize a scheme for appointing counsels based on transparency and merit. The finalized scheme is to be presented before the court on the next date of listing.
The court has ordered the Managing Director of UPSRTC to file an affidavit and has also granted time to the petitioners to file an amendment application.
The case is scheduled to be heard next on September 22, 2025.
