*"Attorney" Tag Under Legal Scanner in Haryana Ahead of Interviews for 255 Posts of A.D.A.s Scheduled for 10-18 Oct by HPSC*

*HC Advocate questions decades-old use of ‘District Attorney’, ‘Deputy District Attorney’ and ‘Assistant District Attorney’ for Regular Employed Govt Advocates*

*1976 amendment to Advocates Act, 1961 omitted ‘Attorney’ term; CPC, 1908 uses Government Pleader (GP) BNSS, 2023 recognises Public Prosecutor (PP) says Hemant Kumar*

CHANDIGARH

October 7 ---

With the Haryana Public Service Commission (HPSC) scheduled to conduct interviews from upcoming  October 10 to 18 for selection to 255 posts of Assistant District Attorneys (ADAs), a decades-old nomenclature used for regular government law officers in Haryana has come under a fresh legal challenge.

Punjab and Haryana High Court Advocate and legal-legislative affairs commentator Hemant Kumar has once again raised questions over the statutory basis for the continued use of designations such as District Attorney, Deputy District Attorney and Assistant District Attorney, arguing that the terminology needs to be reviewed in the light of the present legal framework governing the legal profession in India.

Hemant has sent Pre-litigation Representation cum Legal Notice to the Governor of Haryana, Chief Minister, Chief Secretary, Home Secretary, Advocate General, Legal Remembrancer and Director of Prosecution, seeking clarification on the legal status and statutory basis of these designations.

Since similar nomenclature is also used for regular government law officers in Punjab and the Union Territory of Chandigarh, notices have also been addressed to the concerned authorities there.

‘Attorney’ terminology removed from Advocates Act in 1976

At the centre of the controversy is the Advocates Act, 1961 Hemant contends that Parliament, through the 1976 amendment, removed the earlier statutory terminology relating to “Attorney” from the legal framework and that the contemporary statutory scheme recognises Advocates and Senior Advocates as the principal categories of legal practitioners.

“Once Parliament substantially recast the statutory framework governing legal practitioners, the continued use of ‘Attorney’ in the designation of regular government lawyers requires a fresh examination of its legal basis,” Hemant said.

According to him, the issue is not merely one of nomenclature but concerns whether government service rules should continue to carry terminology which, in his view, does not correspond with the present statutory vocabulary governing advocates and government law officers.

CPC, 1908 refers to Government Pleader; BNSS, 2023 to Public Prosecutor

Hemant has also drawn attention to the terminology actually used in procedural laws.

For civil litigation, the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 uses the expression “Government Pleader (GP) ”, while in criminal proceedings the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), 2023 uses the expression “Public Prosecutor(PP)”.

He argues that Haryana's regular government law officers, depending upon the nature of their assignments, function before courts as Government Pleaders or Public Prosecutors, rather than as “Attorneys”.

“The question therefore arises as to why the service nomenclature continues to retain the expression ‘Attorney’ when the operative statutory and courtroom terminology uses Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor,” Hemant said.

‘Attorney’ not a generic statutory designation for government lawyers

The notice further points out that Article 76 of the Constitution specifically provides for the office of the Attorney General for India, appointed by the President and recognised as the country's highest law officer.

Hemant has questioned the statutory basis for extending the expression “Attorney” to various government service designations such as District Attorney, Deputy District Attorney and Assistant District Attorney.

He has also pointed out that expressions such as Additional Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General and Assistant Attorney General do not constitute corresponding constitutional offices under Article 76.

Even Haryana Advocate General's office uses different nomenclature

The notuce highlights that the Office of the Advocate General, Haryana, functioning before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, does not use the “Attorney” nomenclature for its law officers.

Instead, designations include Senior Additional Advocate General, Additional Advocate General, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Deputy Advocate General and Assistant Advocate General.

Hemant has further referred to the Haryana Law Officers (Engagement) Act, 2016, enacted by the Haryana Legislature following Supreme Court directions, contending that the legislation itself does not employ the expression “Attorney” for the State's law officers.

Centre also follows ‘Law Officer’ nomenclature

Another point raised in the representation is that various Union Government departments and ministries generally use designations such as Law Officer, Legal Adviser, Government Counsel and Public Prosecutor for their legal personnel.

Against this backdrop, Hemant has questioned the continued retention of “Attorney” terminology in Haryana's regular government legal service.

Demand for review of service rules

The advocate has urged the Haryana Government to undertake a comprehensive review of the relevant service rules, recruitment rules and statutory nomenclature governing its regular law officers.

He has appealed that, wherever legally appropriate, designations such as Government Advocate, Government Pleader, Public Prosecutor or Law Officer may be considered in place of the existing “Attorney”-based nomenclature.

The issue assumes added significance as the HPSC is set to interview 255 candidates for Assistant District Attorney posts between October 10 and 18.

The notice has therefore sought an early clarification from the competent authorities on whether the existing nomenclature has a continuing statutory basis and, if so, under which specific law, rule or notification.

“The question is ultimately one of legislative and administrative consistency. If the statutory framework has evolved, the nomenclature in government service rules should also be examined and brought in conformity with the prevailing legal regime,” Hemant said.