Apex Court Expresses Displeasure Over Absence Of Central Govt's Lawyers On Many Occasions, Says It Doesn't Like Summoning Officers
The Supreme Court has expressed its displeasure over repeated absence of the Lawyers of the Central Government on several occasions.
The Court said that it does not like summoning Government Officers before it.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan remarked, "The court does not take pleasure in summoning the officers to the court. However, when in spite of being duly served, the respondents do not put in appearance, we were compelled to do so."
The Bench also sought the presence of the Director General of the Centre's Directorate General of Health Services while flagging the "casual approach" in a case relating to the admission of a medical aspirant belonging to persons with disability category.
Additional Solicitor General Vikramjit Banerjee appeared on behalf of the Centre.
Justice Gavai said, "What is this? Notices are served and you don't even bother to appear. ... This is not happening for the first time. On many occasions, for the Union of India, nobody is present here."
The Court was dealing with a Petition filed by an aspirant belonging to the Persons with Disability (PwD) category. The Court had passed the Order and directed the Officer to remain present as despite being duly served, no one appeared for the authority. The said Petition was filed against the Order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which dismissed the aspirant's plea for admission to MBBS course for the academic session 2024-25.
"We expect you to respond when a matter pertains to persons with disability. ... You have so many panel counsel. Why don't you assign some panel counsel to some courts so that at least when we require somebody's assistance, somebody can be there immediately.", also said the Court.
The Court observed that the challenge in the case was regarding certificate of disability. It observed that a similar question was earlier decided by it in a separate case and the relief was denied primarily on the ground that opinion of disability experts couldn't substitute the Court's opinion.
With PTI Inputs
