Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court has raised a significant question regarding the ethical and legal boundaries of government law officers. In a recent development, the Court has sought a detailed clarification from the Uttar Pradesh government on whether an Additional Chief Standing Counsel (ACSC) can represent a private individual in a case where the State itself is a contesting party.

The issue strikes at the heart of the "Conflict of Interest" doctrine, questioning whether a lawyer paid by the public exchequer to defend the State can simultaneously act against the State’s interests in the same courtroom.

The matter arose before Justice Divesh Chandra Samant during the hearing of a criminal revision petition titled Smt. Meera Devi vs. State of U.P. and Another.

When the case was called for hearing on January 7, 2026, Advocate Indrasen Singh Tomar appeared before the Court. However, he wasn't there to represent the State. Instead, he sought the Court’s permission to appear on behalf of the "Opposite Party No. 2"—a private individual contesting the revision filed by Smt. Meera Devi.

This request immediately met with a fierce objection from the counsel representing the revisionist, Smt. Meera Devi. The primary contention was simple but profound: Advocate Tomar holds the prestigious and responsible position of Additional Chief Standing Counsel (ACSC) for the State of Uttar Pradesh.

The revisionist’s counsel argued that since the State of U.P. is a necessary party to the criminal revision, a lawyer officially assigned to work as the State’s Additional Chief Standing Counsel cannot legally or ethically represent a private party in that very same case.

The Conflict of Interest Debate

In the legal profession, loyalty is paramount. A lawyer is expected to avoid any situation where their duty to one client might clash with their duty to another. This is especially sensitive when one of those clients is the "State."

In this instance, the State of U.P. is a party to the criminal revision. If a government law officer represents the private opponent, they are effectively standing in a position that could be seen as adverse to the State's broader interests or the administration of justice which they are sworn to uphold.

Advocate Tomar, responding to the objection, did not immediately concede. He requested time from the Court to present the relevant statutory provisions, government rules, or instructions that govern the appointment and conduct of an Additional Chief Standing Counsel. He maintained that he would demonstrate whether such an appearance is permissible under the current legal framework of Uttar Pradesh.

Recognizing that this is not just a dispute between two lawyers but a "larger question" concerning the integrity of the government's legal machinery, Justice Samant decided to go beyond the immediate case.

The Court observed that it is essential to define the rights, duties, and limitations of government law officers to prevent any ambiguity or misuse of position. Consequently, the Court issued a series of directions:

Report from Principal Secretary (Law): The Court directed the Principal Secretary (Law) & Legal Remembrancer (L.R.) of Uttar Pradesh to submit a detailed report.
Scope of the Inquiry: The report must specifically address the rights and duties of an Additional Chief Standing Counsel regarding their appearance for private parties.
Legal Basis: The report must be backed by the specific provisions, rules, or government instructions that regulate such conduct.
Strict Timeline: The Court has given the State two weeks to submit this report.

To ensure there are no delays, the Registrar (Compliance) of the High Court was ordered to forward a copy of the judicial order to the Principal Secretary (Law) within 48 hours.

This case could set a vital precedent for the conduct of government advocates across India. Usually, government law officers are governed by the "Legal Remembrancer’s Manual" (LR Manual) or specific state-level terms of appointment. While some states allow "private practice" for their law officers as long as it doesn't conflict with State interests, the definition of "conflict" is often a grey area.

If the Court finds that such an appearance is prohibited, it could lead to a stricter enforcement of professional ethics for hundreds of government lawyers who often juggle private briefs alongside their official duties.

The case is now listed to be heard peremptorily (with priority and no further adjournments) after two weeks, by which time the State's report is expected to be on record.

Case Details:

Case Title: Smt. Meera Devi vs. State of U.P. and Another
Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 2843 of 2018
Bench: Justice Divesh Chandra Samant
Order Date: January 7, 2026