Counter affidavits are being prepared superficially, Allahabad High Court pulled up the government
The Allahabad High Court has taken serious note of the negligence on the part of the government in filing counter affidavits in petitions etc. Making a scathing comment, the court said that the government has no dearth of qualified advocates who assist the court in delivering justice. Despite this, it is often seen that carelessness is being taken in preparing the counter affidavits. In most of the government counter affidavits, the statements of the bail applications are not given adequate response along with documents and during the arguments, the government lawyers ask for time to present the relevant documents. This practice is not only a waste of court time but also a hindrance in the administration of justice.
Justice Manjurani Chauhan has made this comment in view of the situation that arose during the hearing of the bail plea of Shuats Naini director Vinod Bihari Lal. The court said that it is the responsibility of senior officials to protect the interests of the state. They should develop a mechanism by which counter affidavits are prepared which serve the purpose. The court said that the Additional Advocate General argued in detail but the counter affidavit did not contain documents to support his arguments. On this he asked for time to file a better affidavit. For this reason the hearing was adjourned.
According to the facts of the case, on June 20, the complainant was going to the old Naini bridge in Prayagraj on a scooty. From behind, four people riding on two bikes showed country-made pistols and threatened to face dire consequences if the Fatehpur case against the Lal brothers was not withdrawn. Those who threatened also caused the scooter to fall after colliding with the bike, due to which the complainant got injured and became unconscious.
People who knew him admitted him to Naini’s hospital. The police registered an FIR there. The petitioner said that he has been falsely implicated on the basis of the complainant’s statement recorded three months after the incident. Statements of some others have also been recorded regarding the incident.
The court said that the counter affidavit filed by the government did not contain other documents including the doctor’s statement, although the Additional Advocate General argued about them. A half-incomplete counter affidavit was hastily prepared and filed. The court said that it is often seen that at the time of arguments, government lawyers ask for time to file the documents, whereas while preparing the counter affidavit, answers to all the statements should be filed along with the documents. The court asked for a better affidavit in this case and said that a mechanism should be prepared to prepare the correct counter affidavit.
