Disability Reservation Does Not Extend to Contractual Engagement of Government Lawyers – Madras High Court

Case Name: V. Muthupandi v. Secretary to Government & Ors.

Factual Background

The appellant, V. Muthupandi, challenged the Government’s Notification No. 1 of 2024 dated 4 July 2024, issued under Rule 5(3) of the Law Officers of High Court of Madras and its Bench at Madurai (Appointment) Rules, 2017, inviting applications for engagement as Additional Advocate General, Special Government Pleader, Additional Government Pleader and Government Advocate. The notification provided that such engagements would be purely contractual and governed by the 2017 Rules.

The appellant, relying on Section 34(1) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (“RPwD Act”), sought accommodation as a Government lawyer on the basis of the statutory reservation framework for persons with benchmark disabilities. Although he stated that he was not seeking reservation for appointment as a Government lawyer, the Court noted that his claim effectively sought reservation through an indirect route.

Court’s Analysis

The Division Bench comprising Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice N. Senthilkumar distinguished between appointment to Government service and engagement of lawyers by the Government to represent it in litigation.

The Court observed that Government lawyers are engaged contractually to represent the Government as a litigant. Their engagement is not an appointment under Government service rules. The Government is therefore entitled to engage lawyers of its choice, including Senior Counsel where matters involve complex or sensitive issues. The relationship is based on contractual engagement and involves professional confidentiality between lawyer and client.

The Court acknowledged the beneficial objective of the RPwD Act and relied upon Vikas Singh v. Union Public Service Commission, (2021) 5 SCC 370, particularly the principle of reasonable accommodation, under which the State and private parties have a positive obligation to facilitate the effective participation of persons with disabilities. It also referred to Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation v. Union of India, (2018) 2 SCC 397, emphasising a liberal and relief-oriented approach towards persons with disabilities.

However, the Court held that these principles could not be used to impose an indirect reservation in Government-lawyer engagements. Doing so would interfere with the Government’s choice as a litigant and potentially affect the litigant’s right to be represented by a lawyer of its choice.

Order of the Court

The Division Bench held that the notification did not prevent persons with disabilities from applying for engagement as Government lawyers. Eligible candidates could therefore apply through the prescribed process, but no candidate could claim a reserved engagement under Section 34 of the RPwD Act. The writ appeal was dismissed, with no order as to costs.

Key Takeaway

The Court clarified that statutory reservation applicable to Government employment cannot automatically be extended to contractual engagement of Government lawyers. While the RPwD Act mandates reasonable accommodation and promotes substantive equality, it does not authorise judicially imposed reservation in a litigant’s choice of legal counsel. Engagement of Government lawyers remains a contractual matter governed by the applicable rules and the Government’s discretion as a litigant.

Written by Adv. K. Sri Hamsa