New Delhi: The Union Ministry of Law and Justice has formally directed the Registrar General of the Uttarakhand High Court to take appropriate action against senior Central Government Standing Counsel Mr Hanu Bhaskar.
The directive comes in response to a complaint filed by 2002 batch Indian Forest Service (IFS) officer of Uttarakhand cadre, Mr Sanjiv Chaturvedi, alleging serious procedural irregularities and misconduct by Bhaskar during his representation in a writ petition related to the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).
Mr Chaturvedi had filed the writ petition in December 2020 before the Uttarakhand High Court challenging the decision of the then CAT Chairman, Justice (Retd.) L. Narasimha Reddy, who had ordered the transfer of his case from the Nainital Bench to the Delhi Bench. The High Court ultimately set aside the transfer in October 2021, citing concerns over financial hardship and mental health stress to the petitioner.
Dual Representation Raises Questions of Judicial Impropriety
A key allegation raised in the complaint pertains to Bhaskar’s dual role during the proceedings. According to Chaturvedi, while Bhaskar was representing the then CAT Chairman before the Uttarakhand High Court, he was simultaneously appearing before the same Chairman in Delhi as panel counsel for the Union of India.
This dual representation, IFS Chaturvedi argues, amounted to a blatant conflict of interest and a “most brazen example of judicial impropriety.” The Law Ministry has taken serious note of this claim, highlighting it separately in a detailed Office Memorandum sent to the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) on August 25, 2025.
Fake Appearance and Financial Irregularities Flagged
Apart from the issue of dual representation, the Law Ministry has flagged serious financial discrepancies associated with Bhaskar’s appearances in the matter. Notably:
- Questionable Hearing Date: A payment of ₹50,000 was sanctioned to Bhaskar for a court appearance on March 23, 2021, which, according to court records submitted by Chaturvedi, never took place in case WPSBC-407/2020.
- Taxi Reimbursement: A reimbursement of ₹40,910 was also sanctioned for taxi expenses related to the same non-existent hearing.
- Unauthorized Fee Sanction: The Ministry has flagged the sanction of ₹1,56,758 to Bhaskar by the then CAT Chairman without the approval of the Department of Legal Affairs. This figure is reportedly several times higher than the standard rates approved for such appearances.
Central Vigilance Commission Also Involved
The Law Ministry’s letter to the Registrar General of the Uttarakhand High Court, dated August 28, 2025, includes a prior communication from the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) dated July 7, 2025. The CVC had requested the Law Ministry to take suitable action on Chaturvedi’s complaint, signaling that the issue had already attracted attention at the highest levels of administrative oversight.
DoPT Also Asked to Inquire into Broader Concerns
In a parallel move, the Law Ministry has asked the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) to examine broader procedural and administrative concerns raised by Chaturvedi. This includes examining the systemic loopholes that allowed such conduct and financial sanctions without oversight.
High Court’s Verdict on the Main Petition
In its October 2021 judgment, the Uttarakhand High Court had sided with Chaturvedi, ruling that the CAT’s decision to transfer the case from Nainital to Delhi was not justified. The court observed that such a move would impose an unreasonable financial and psychological burden on the petitioner and that the Tribunal had failed to consider the “hardship caused.”
Larger Implications for Legal Ethics and Government Accountability
The allegations and subsequent government actions underscore serious concerns over the conduct of government-appointed legal representatives and the transparency of financial processes involved in litigation. If proven true, the matter could raise broader questions about conflict of interest, legal ethics, and the role of oversight bodies in ensuring accountability.
