Ensuring Effective Representation of the State: Revisiting Government Advocates’ Role under the Karnataka Conduct of Government Litigation Act, 2023
The Karnataka Conduct of Government Litigation Act, 2023 was enacted to ensure that the Government of Karnataka’s legal interests are defended with discipline, diligence, and accountability in the courts and statutory tribunals. Prior to this, government litigation in Karnataka was guided largely by executive instructions, outdated rules and ad-hoc practices. The new Act seeks to rectify these by prescribing structured processes for litigation conduct, supervision and responsibility. The Act applies to all proceedings in which the State is a party, whether before trial courts, High Courts or tribunals. It mandates that each litigation must be recorded, monitored and progressed through designated Law Officers and Litigation Conducting Officers. Sections 18 and 19 specify that the Law Officer must study all relevant facts, prepare draft written statements/counters, and raise all valid legal and factual defenses while ensuring that nothing is conceded without justification. Approval of such defenses is subject to superintendence by the Law Secretary. Further, Section 9 places responsibility on Litigation Conducting Officers to regularly track case progress and provide necessary instructions at every stage. Heads of Departments are also made duty-bound to maintain records of cases and supervise them actively. And the Act empowers the Government to frame detailed rules — including duties of the Advocate General, Additional AGs and Government Advocates. In short, these provisions aim at institutional accountability — not merely leave litigation to individual advocates without oversight.
The Problem: Acceptance of Notice — And Then Silence
Despite these progressive norms, a commonly observed issue in actual court conduct is that Government Advocates often accept notice on behalf of the State, but fail to file timely written responses, affidavits or pleadings thereafter. This results in:
- Adjournments and delays
- Default judgments or adverse orders
- Loss of government revenue or legal rights due to procedural lapses
- An impression of casual representation that undermines the rule of law
This pattern is not merely a procedural flaw — it amounts to a failure to uphold the government’s duty to defend its own interests in court.
Who Is Responsible? A Chain of Accountability
The Karnataka Act distributes responsibility at multiple levels:
- Law Officers / Government Advocates — duty to prepare and file all pleadings, raise defenses, attend hearings and ensure compliance with court directions.
- Litigation Conducting Officers — mandated to regularly monitor the case and ensure instructions are followed and deadlines met.
- Heads of Departments — responsible for effective supervision and monthly progress review of government litigation.
- Law Secretary and Higher Authorities — duty to scrutinize drafts and prevent unwarranted concessions.
Thus, while Government Advocates are on the frontline, accountability begins with the administrative machinery that appoints, supervises and evaluates them.
Remedies for the Lacunae
1. Strengthening Monitoring Systems
The Act envisions an electronic Court Case Monitoring System (CCMS) so that all departments can track hearing dates, status and compliance. Full implementation and real-time reporting must be enforced so that acknowledgment of notice triggers automatic action items and alerts for filings.
2. Internal Deadlines and Escalation Protocols
Departments should adopt internal timelines — e.g., prepare draft response within 7 days of notice acceptance — with escalation to senior officers if deadlines lapse. Clear accountability matrices, with monthly reporting, would reduce default positions.
3. Training and Capacity Building
Government Advocates should receive regular professional training on litigation strategy, pleading standards and procedural compliance. The Act’s intent will be defeated unless the legal cadre is equipped to discharge these duties competently.
4. Disciplinary Action & Incentives
The State must adopt clear disciplinary guidelines against officers and advocates whose negligence results in significant adverse orders or loss of government rights. Conversely, merit and diligence could be incentivized.
5. Court Supervision Where Needed
Judicial practice in India recognises that law officers are not merely routine litigants but custodians of public interest. In Dr. J. Madhusudhan Reddy & Ors. vs Government of A.P., the Supreme Court noted that when Government Counsel fail to represent properly, the Court directed senior mechanisms to be put in place to avoid inordinate delays caused by non-representation.
Relevant Case Law on Duties of Government Advocates/Law Officers
- Dr. J. Madhusudhan Reddy & Ors. v. Government of A.P. – The Supreme Court criticised the failure of law officers to appear and directed systemic remedies so that Government Counsel perform their duties and avoid unnecessary adjournments and delays.
- General Principles on Counsel Duties – While not specific to government counsel, Indian jurisprudence recognises that advocates are officers of the court whose conduct impacts administration of justice. Improper representation undermines democratic values and the rule of law.
- SOP on Government Officials’ Appearance – The Supreme Court’s procedural observations emphasise that law officers, not frequent summoning of government officials, should be the primary representatives of the State; frequent defaults weaken systemic respect for court processes.
There are instances where the government departments submit timely responses and instructions, but Government Advocates fail to file pleadings or actively support the case in court. This disconnect between the administrative response and legal action has serious consequences, not only for the government but for public interest at large.
The Statutory Role of Government Advocates
Under the Karnataka Conduct of Government Litigation Act, 2023, Government Advocates are not mere post offices transmitting files to courts. They are key actors entrusted with safeguarding the legal interests of the State. The Act envisages that once a department provides instructions, records, and factual inputs, the Government Advocate must:
- Draft and file written statements, objections or counter affidavits within the time granted by the court
- Raise all legally sustainable defences
- Assist the court fairly while firmly protecting government interest
- Avoid procedural lapses that may result in adverse or default orders
The Act further establishes a framework of Litigation Conducting Officers, Heads of Departments, and supervisory law officers, clearly indicating that litigation is a shared institutional responsibility — but execution in court rests primarily with the advocate.
The Problem: Department Ready, Advocate Missing
In many cases today, government departments comply with court directions, supply instructions on time, and even approve drafts — yet the advocate fails to file the response or appears unprepared, leading to:
- Closure of the government’s right to file objections
- Interim or final orders passed due to “no representation”
- Courts recording adverse remarks against the State
- Avoidable financial and policy losses
When such failures occur despite departmental diligence, the question arises: where does accountability lie?
Who Is Responsible Under the Act?
The Karnataka Act provides a clear answer.
- Primary Responsibility – Government Advocate
Once instructions are furnished, the advocate is professionally and statutorily bound to act. Failure to file pleadings or support the case amounts to dereliction of duty. - Supervisory Responsibility – Litigation Conducting Officer
The Act mandates continuous monitoring of case progress. If an advocate defaults, the officer must immediately intervene and escalate the matter. - Administrative Responsibility – Head of Department & Law Department
Repeated failures by an advocate indicate systemic neglect and require administrative correction, including review of empanelment.
The Act thus rejects the old excuse that “the file did not move” or “instructions were not received” when records show otherwise.
What Is the Solution When Advocates Fail Despite Departmental Compliance?
1. Immediate Substitution of Advocate
Where an advocate fails to file pleadings despite receiving instructions, the department must seek immediate substitution of counsel. The Act does not compel blind loyalty to erring advocates; it prioritises effective representation.
2. Written Record of Instructions and Default
Departments must maintain written proof of having supplied instructions and drafts. This protects officers from blame and fixes responsibility squarely on the advocate.
3. Reporting and Blacklisting Mechanism
The Law Department must institutionalise a performance-based review of Government Advocates. Repeated non-filing, absence, or weak representation should lead to:
- Removal from panel
- Temporary suspension from government work
- Permanent de-empanelment in serious cases
4. Facing Accountability
Courts increasingly expect the State to litigate responsibly. When advocates default, the government should not hesitate to place facts before the court and seek time with a new counsel. Judicial transparency strengthens, rather than weakens, the government’s credibility.
5. Digitised Monitoring and Alerts
The Act envisages a litigation monitoring system. Once a department uploads its response, automatic alerts must be triggered until filing is completed. Silence from the advocate should no longer go unnoticed.
A Question of Public Interest, Not Mere Procedure
Government litigation is not private litigation. Every case involves public money, public policy, and public trust. When an advocate fails to act despite departmental readiness, it is not a clerical lapse — it is a failure of governance.
If the State has spoken through its departments, its advocate must not remain silent. The rule of law demands nothing less.
Vidyadhar Durgekar is an Advocate, An Author, Poet(With twelve publications to his credit in English and Kannada), Ex Dy Commandant, General Secretary, Federation of Karnataka Apartment Owners Coop Societies.
