Allahabad High Court Rejects Plea to Remove Justice Sangeeta Chandra’s Husband from UP Counsel Role

The Allahabad High Court dismissed a petition seeking the removal of Justice Sangeeta Chandra’s husband, Sandeep Chandra, from his role as UP Standing Counsel, stating no evidence of misconduct. Learn the full judgment details and implications.

Background of the Petition

The Allahabad High Court recently dismissed a writ petition seeking the removal of Sandeep Chandra, husband of sitting judge Justice Sangeeta Chandra, from his position as Standing Counsel for the Government of Uttar Pradesh.

The case titled Anupam Mehrotra v. State of UP alleged a potential conflict of interest and violation of professional conduct norms. However, the Bench comprising Justices Rajan Roy and Om Prakash Shukla found no evidence of misconduct.

No Proof of Misconduct or Influence

The Bench clearly stated that no material was presented to suggest that advocate Chandra leveraged his marital relationship with Justice Chandra for professional gain.

“There have been no references to any events where he might have exploited his position,” the Bench observed. “Justice Chandra has served as a judge since 2016, yet the petition lacks any instance suggesting her involvement in benefiting her spouse.”

Petitioner’s Allegations Against Sandeep Chandra

The petitioner urged the Court to prohibit advocate Chandra from practicing at the Lucknow Bench of the High Court while his wife serves there. He also demanded that Chandra be temporarily suspended from the advocate roll and filed a complaint with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh.

To support his claim, the petitioner submitted a photo of the gate of the residence shared by the couple, showing both their nameplates. He argued that this violated the Bar Council of India (BCI) Rules and appeared to promote advocate Chandra’s connection with Justice Chandra.

Delhi High Court Precedent Cited

The Court referred to a judgment by the Delhi High Court, emphasizing that BCI Rules only prohibit advocates from appearing before a relative who is the presiding judge in the same matter—not the entire Court.

“We found no justification for interpreting the provisions differently. The explanation added to the BCI Rules balances legal practice rights with judicial integrity,” the Bench ruled.

Allegations Deemed Unsubstantiated

The claim that advocate Chandra was operating his office from their residence was dismissed. The Court noted the nameplate was small and not promotional. Additionally, the petitioner failed to confirm the ownership of the house or provide details about the date the photograph was taken.

The Court ruled that the photograph and associated claims did not qualify as grounds for issuing a writ of quo warranto against a state law officer.

Court Rebukes Petitioner for Baseless Allegations

The Court called out the petitioner for using “scandalising” language and urged introspection, especially since the petitioner is an experienced lawyer representing himself.

“A petition drafted by a self-representing lawyer with 30 years of experience should avoid intemperate language,” the Court remarked. “The petitioner must consider whether such unverified claims are a responsible use of legal knowledge.”

Conclusion

This ruling by the Allahabad High Court reinforces the principles of legal ethics, fairness, and judicial integrity. It affirms that allegations without evidence—no matter how sensitive the relationship dynamics—will not hold in a court of law.