New Delhi | States and Union Territories have the power to change their empanelled advocates, but while doing so they must ensure that the court's functioning is not adversely affected, the Supreme Court has said.
While changing the panel of advocates, the states should continue the old panel for at least six weeks so that the Courts are not forced to grant adjournments.
A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan noted that after the change of power from one political party to another, the States/Union Territories are changing their panel of advocates appearing in the court.
Therefore, this Court is required to grant adjournments from time to time on the grounds of change, it said.
"It is true that the States/Union Territories have power to change their empanelled advocates, but while doing so, they must ensure that the court's functioning is not adversely affected. Therefore, it will be appropriate if the States/Union Territories while changing the panel of advocates continue the old panel for at least six weeks so that the Courts are not forced to grant adjournments.
The top court directed its Registry to circulate a copy of this order to the standing counsel representing all the States/Union Territories.
The observation by the bench came while hearing a plea filed by a man seeking bail in a case of cheating and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Sections 3, 4, 6, 9 and 10 of the Uttar Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1988 in which the maximum sentence is of 10 years.
The apex court noted that the appellant has undergone incarceration for a period of more than one-and-a-half years and no antecedents of the appellant have been brought on record.
"Therefore, in our view, the appellant deserves to be enlarge on bail, pending the final disposal of the case. For that purpose, we direct that the appellant shall be produced before the trial court within a period of one week.
"The trial court shall enlarge the appellant on bail on appropriate terms and conditions till the final disposal of the case. Needless to add that, if the appellant misuses the liberty granted to him under the order of bail, it will always be open for the respondent-State to apply for cancellation of bail," the bench said.
