Uttam v.

Saubhag Singh and others

Family and personal Laws- Hindu Succession Act,1956- Ss. 6 proviso, 8, 4, 19 and 30- Section 6 as
stood before the amendment in 2005 – Having interest in ancestral Mitakshra property, if a male
Hindu dies, with his surviving members of the coparcenary left behind, after commencement of HAS,
then by proviso to Sec. 6 the interest of the deceased person in the property would devolve upon the
surviving members of the coparcenary left behind by intestate succession under S. 8 rather than by
survivorship under section 6. And after devolution of the property as under S. 8, property would no
longer be considered to be a joint family property and all the coparceners and female heir would hold
their respective share in the property as tenants-in-common.

State of Punjab & Anr. V. Brijeshwar Singh Chahal & Anr.

Constitution of India – Article 14 - Authority of law – Principles of reasonableness- Expanding
horizons of Jurisprudence- Extension of principles to contractual matters- Court’s power of judicial
review wide enough to strike at the annul any state action that is arbitrary, unguided, whimsical,
unfair and discriminatory.

Judiciary- Administration of Justice- Role of advocates in general, and Government Counsel in

particular given that 80% of litigation involves state or its instrumentalities- Necessity of capable
advocates to uphold the rule of law and help the court in doing justice- Government counsel’s ability
to present the case affects both public interest and values of justice- Appointment of Government
counsel should be based on merit and should be fair, reasonable, transparent, and non-discriminatory.

Constitution of India - Arts. 162 & 73, 310 and 14 - Government and so also all public bodies are
trustees of the power vested in them - Discharge of the trust reposed in them in the best possible
manner is their primary duty Power to engage, employ or recruit servants, agents, advisors and
representatives must like any other power be exercised in a fair, reasonable, non-discriminatory and
objective manner - An action that is arbitrary has no place in a polity governed by Rule of Law apart
from being offensive to the equality clause guaranteed by Art. 14 of Constitution - Mandate of Art. 14
fully applicable Scope of judicial review

Advocates - Government Law Officers/Counsel/Pleaders - Appointment of Law Officers is not just a

professional engagement but has a public Government and all public bodies are trustees of power
vested in them- They have a primary duty to discharge said trust in best possible manner Thus,
Government and its instrumentalities are under an obligation to engage the most competent lawyers -
Appointment of Government counsel should be based on merit and should be fair, reasonable,
transparent, and non-discriminatory- This will ensure that public interest and interest of Government
is protected and that quality of justice is not hampered - Scope of judicial review - Judicial review of
State action is permissible even when the engagement of the Government Counsel may be contractual
in nature Plea that their engagement is a professional and contractual engagement.

Advocates - Appointment Procedure -Government is free to formulate its own procedure -But it
should be linked to workload of court concerned so that large amounts of money are not wasted on
idle Law Officers Appointment of Government counsel should be based on merit and should be fair,
reasonable, transparent, and non-discriminatory.

Advocates- Government Law Officers/Counsel/Pleaders Appointment of State Government Counsel

(other than Advocate General) No statutory procedure existing in States of Punjab and Haryana for a
fair, reasonable, transparent, objective and credible selection - Failure of duty There is no realistic
assessment of requirement of Law Officers before making appointments Appointment of Law
Officers in large numbers are made not because of requirement, but because they come handy for
political aggrandizement, appeasement or personal benevolence of those in power towards those
appointed Unregulated appointment is against Rule of Law, against public faith in fairness in system
and is against public interest and administration of justice Such a system should be stopped by
exercise of power of judicial review - In Punjab and Haryana there is also no procedure for selection
of Law Officers- There is no Selection or Search Committee State Governments not indicating how
assessment of merit is done while selecting Law Officers Advocate General on whose
recommendation, appointments are made also not following any procedure - Sometimes State
Government also making appointments on its own- Mechanism that should be adopted for
appointment of Government Counsel, laid down - Government to first assess its requirement having
regard to workload in different courts Secondly, based on such assessment, Government directed to
constitute a Selection Committee to carry out the selection for said appointment Fair, reasonable,
transparent and credible method in which Committee should make selection stated [see paras 49 to
51] - Thirdly, consultative process of appointment for Public Prosecutors as prescribed in S. 24 CrPC,
directed to be adopted while appointing State Counsel as well - Manner in which a Committee of
Judges of High Court who are consulted should review the names recommended for appointment-
New directions will not nullify the appointments earlier made - Hence, directions issued therefor
Other States should also make an attempt to make their system more transparent, fair and objective, if
necessary, by amending the relevant manuals, rules, regulations