Clear Delhi govt’s legal costs at the earliest, Supreme Court tells Centre

The Delhi government informed the court that fees payable to lawyers who appeared for the government in past cases were stuck pending clearance from LG office.

The Supreme Court on Friday told the Centre to clear the outstanding bills for legal services and lawyers’ fees claimed by the Delhi government at the earliest and “not make it an issue of prestige”.

The Supreme Court asked the Centre not to make it an issue of prestige. (HT Photo)

The court was hearing a petition filed by the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP)-led Arvind Kejriwal government challenging three separate administrative orders passed by the Centre and the lieutenant governor restricting the choice of the Delhi government to engage lawyers and senior lawyers of their choice to represent them in matters before the courts.

While the issue is pending consideration on which Centre took time to respond on Friday, the Delhi government informed the court that fees payable to lawyers who appeared for the government in past cases were stuck pending clearance from the LG office.

“Don’t make it a prestige issue. Just check up on the bills and get it cleared,” the bench headed by justice Sanjiv Khanna said.

Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, who appeared for the Centre, assured the court that he would get the matter examined. “It will be examined. The court may call it in July,” said Mehta.

As the Centre was yet to file a response to the main petition, the bench, also comprising justice Dipankar Datta allowed the Centre four weeks to file its response while posting the matter for July.

The AAP government, which is litigating several cases against the Centre before the Supreme Court and Delhi high court, had challenged the order of August 10, 2017, passed by the ministry of home affairs (MHA), and two orders issued by the LG office on April 28, 2021 and February 16, 2024.

“The petitioner has several cases of substantial legal importance and constitutional importance pending before this court and unless the petitioner is able to appoint advocates freely as per its own choice, the right to access courts for vindication of legal and constitutional rights would be prejudiced,” the plea filed by advocate Talha Abdul Rahman said.

Seeking a stay on the three orders under challenge, the plea added that the financial obligations to lawyers need to be discharged at the earliest. “The petitioner also needs to discharge its financial obligations owed to lawyers who have diligently assisted this court on behalf of the petitioner and whose appointments and fees are duly approved in terms of the cabinet decision of October 16, 2019.”

“There is some urgency as there are cases we are contesting against the Centre. How do we defend ourselves if fees are not paid,” said senior advocate Siddharth Dave appearing for the Delhi government, adding, “The petitioner is being forced to choose from a specified pool of advocates curtailing our choice of lawyers. Even in limited situations when we can choose outside of the pool, the same has to be with the concurrence of the Centre which is the opposite party in our litigation.”