
Not just stalking accused, several VIP relatives on list of law officers appointed by Haryana govt
This, ironically, when the Supreme Court, as early as 2016, had cautioned against such appointments and advised guidelines to insulate the process from politics.
On July 18, Vikas Barala, the son of BJP Rajya Sabha MP and former Haryana BJP president Subhash Barala, was named as one of 97 law officers in the state.
Talking to The Indian Express, Advocate General Pravindra Singh Chauhan said: 'As far as Vikas Barala is concerned, he has not joined yet…I was not aware of the background (of Vikas Barala). I don't think he (Vikas) will join.'
AG Chauhan told The Indian Express that it was wrong to see all from one lens. 'I have seen their (the new appointees') working. All of them are competent lawyers. They have not made it to these posts due to their surnames, but only due to their competence. All the selections have been made on merit.'
The AG's office in Haryana put out an advertisement in January for 100 posts of law officers (including 20 Additional AGs, 20 Senior Deputy AGs, 30 Deputy AGs and 30 Assistant AGs).
A Selection Committee was then set up, with AG Chauhan as its head, and Special Secretary (Home) Maniram Sharma, 'Legal Remembrancer' Ritu Garg, and retired judges Darshan Singh and H S Bhalla as members.
Of the 97 chosen, The Indian Express found, at least 23 have links to either politicians, bureaucrats or judges.
These include at least seven close relatives of retired or serving high court judges, seven close relatives of IAS-IPS officers, seven close aides of BJP ministers or MLAs, and relatives of officials of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the State Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana.
Aakash Singla, who has been appointed as Additional AG and whose father is a former head of the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana, told The Indian Express, 'I have been practising since 2012 and it is my first stint in the Haryana AG's office. I was earlier on the panel of Punjab and Haryana High Court.'
Also appointed as Additional AG, Ruchi Sekhri, the BJP state secretary, Chandigarh, said, 'I have been practising for the last 22 years. It is my first stint in the Haryana AG's office.'
Vasundhara Dalal Anand, the daughter of a former DGP who is also among the new Additional AGs, said she had been practising for over two decades and had earned her law degree from Delhi University.
Another newly appointed Additional AG, not willing to be named, said she had been practising for nearly 15 years, and had earlier been with the Punjab AG's office.
While an Additional AG in Haryana is entitled to Rs 1.8 lakh per month, apart from Rs 25,000 as retainer fee, a Deputy AG gets Rs 1.28 lakh, and an Assistant AG such as Vikas Barala Rs 88,400 per month. All the appointments are on a provisional/contract basis, and for a period of a year to begin with.
A law officer's duties include giving advice to the state government in legal matters; to appear and defend the state government or its officials or any statutory authority before a court or tribunal; to represent the state government in any reference made by the President to the Supreme Court; and to discharge such other functions as are conferred on a law officer. The law officers are barred from appearing in any court of law 'against the interest of the state government'.
Additionally, the AG can engage up to five advocates who 'possess such special qualifications and experience as deemed suitable for Law Officers'.
The Haryana Law Officers' Engagement Act, 2016, says the candidates must be advocates, picked as per eligibility, merit and suitability, including the number of cases handled by them.
While Barala's appointment has raised a row, such appointments took place under previous governments too. It was this that led to the Supreme Court curtailing the discretion of Punjab and Haryana governments in appointing law officers in March 2016, while advising guidelines for the same on the basis of merit and eligibility.
Hearing a bunch of cases challenging law officers' appointments, a Bench of Chief Justice of India T S Thakur and Justice Kurian Joseph said: 'For a fair and objective system of appointment, there ought to be a fair and realistic assessment of the requirement. For otherwise, the appointments may be made not because they are required but because they come handy for political aggrandisement, appeasement or personal benevolence of those in power towards those appointed.'
Rejecting the states' argument that appointments of law officers were contractual in nature and not public employment, the Court pointed out that the persons chosen lead some of the most important cases involving public interest. The Court also said that while its directions were confined to Punjab and Haryana, 'other states would (also) do well to reform their system of selection and appointment to make the same more transparent, fair and objective'.
Subsequently, the BJP government in Haryana passed the Haryana Law Officers' Engagement Act in September 2016.
Asked about Vikas Barala's appointment, former Haryana CM Bhupinder Singh Hooda of the Congress said: 'I do not comment on individuals, but all I can say is that only competent people should be appointed (as law officers).'
Another senior state politician said, 'It is commonly known that many of these appointments are political appointments. Of course, many of those who have political or bureaucratic linkages are also bright and competent and make it due to their competence, and not only due to their surnames.'
Incidentally, on Thursday, hearing a case on the appointment of Punjab AG Maninderjit Singh Bedi, a Division Bench of the High Court held that 'you cannot succeed in the challenge to an office of Advocate General just by saying he is politically affiliated with some party… That cannot be a disqualification'.
Meanwhile, in a Facebook post Thursday, Varnika Kundu, who had accused Vikas Barala of stalking and attempted abduction, said: 'Appointing someone to a public position of power is not just a political decision – it's a reflection of values and standards… Our policymakers run the country; the rest of us are just hoping they remember that they work FOR the INDIAN CITIZEN. What I will speak about is my own case – and the fact that despite months of national media attention, it has dragged on for this long with little progress… I continue to hold faith in the judiciary until the verdict is announced – but I won't deny that faith has wavered.'

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Hindu
10 minutes ago
- The Hindu
House of wars: on Parliament, Operation Sindoor discussion
The government and the Opposition crossed swords in Parliament during a discussion on Operation Sindoor this week. There was unanimity in praising India's armed forces, but there was little common ground beyond that. Operation Sindoor was India's military response to the terrorist attack in Pahalgam, on April 22, 2025, which claimed 26 lives. The elimination of three terrorists behind the attack, just before the parliamentary debate, helped the government's case. It told Parliament that these terrorists were Lashkar-e-Taiba members from Pakistan. The Narendra Modi government's strident approach seeks to change the behaviour of Pakistan and reassure its domestic audience. The success of this approach is debatable and the Opposition sought to put the government on the spot on both counts. A demonstrated willingness to use force against Pakistan in the event of a terrorism incident is a definitive turn in India's strategy, and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) takes pride in that. But there is no evidence yet that it is working though there has been chest thumping around it by the ruling party. The discussion in Parliament barely addressed the implications of this approach, which is being touted as the new normal. The Opposition and the government agreed on the need to punish Pakistan, and also disagreed on who would do it better. The government claimed success in meeting its objectives of launching a military operation and denied that it had acted under pressure in ending the war. Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi demanded a pointed response to repeated claims by U.S. President Donald Trump that he mediated the ceasefire but the Prime Minister evaded a direct response on it. The government contradicts itself when it says that the operation was a success, and that it is continuing. It is also exasperating to hear a party that is now in its eleventh year of uninterrupted power, blame people who passed away decades ago for any challenge that India faces now. There was little self-reflection regarding the lapses that led to the terrorism incident, and whether and how the government plans to address them. The government had sent joint teams including several MPs from the Opposition abroad to garner support for India in the aftermath of the operation, but that sign of statesmanship was a short-lived aberration, as it turns out. The world is changing rapidly and India's capacity to navigate those changes will be largely determined by its own character. Questioning the patriotism of political opponents is an easy route to take to evade tough questions, but the BJP must realise that such an approach has diminishing returns.

The Hindu
10 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Delhi court dismisses defamation case filed by AAP's Satyendra Jain against BJP MP Bansuri Swaraj
A Delhi court on Thursday dismissed an appeal filed by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Satyendar Kumar Jain in a defamation case against Bharatiya Janata Party MP Bansuri Swaraj, citing that merely repeating information already in the public domain does not amount to defamation. The court also criticised the Enforcement Directorate (ED), which had initially posted on X the information shared by the BJP MP, saying that the central agency holds the responsibility of sharing only accurate and non-misleading information with the public. Special Judge Jitendra Singh of the Rouse Avenue Courts observed that sufficient ground does not exist for taking cognisance of the offence as defined and punishable under Section 356 of the BNS. The case filed by Mr. Jain is based on 'defamatory' comments about him during a television interview by Ms. Swaraj. The AAP leader stated that during the interview, Ms. Swaraj allegedly claimed that ₹3 crore in cash, 1.8 kilograms of gold, and 133 gold coins were recovered from the AAP leader's house. The ED also shared this information on its social media handle. Mr. Jain alleged that the statement made on TV had damaged his reputation. Mr. Jain had challenged a trial court order that rejected his criminal defamation complaint against the BJP MP earlier this year. In a strongly worded message, the court said that it is incumbent upon an investigative agency such as the ED to act impartially and uphold the principles of fairness and due process. 'Any dissemination of information, including but not limited to official social media platforms, must be accurate, non-misleading, and free from sensationalism,' the court said. 'The presentation of facts in a manner that is misleading, scandalous, or inten to defame or politically prejudice an individual would not only undermine the integrity of the agency but may also amount to an abuse of power and violation of the individual's fundamental rights, including the right to reputation under Article 21 of the Constitution,' it said. While dismissing the defamation case, the court added that there was no 'willful misrepresentation or malicious intent' of the accused, hence Ms. Swaraj cannot be held liable for the alleged offence of defamation. 'If at all any statement is perceived as defamatory, the liability, if any, would lie with the source agency, i.e., the ED, which originally disseminated the information. The proposed accused, being a secondary communicator of officially released material, cannot be fastened with criminal liability, especially in the absence of intent to harm the reputation of the Complainant,' it added.


Hans India
10 minutes ago
- Hans India
BJP Registers Major Victory in Three-Tier Panchayat Elections
The results of the recently concluded three-tier Panchayat elections in Uttarakhand are steadily being received. According to the latest updates, BJP-supported candidates have been declared victorious on 125 out of a total of 358 district panchayat seats. Meanwhile, Congress-backed candidates have secured 83 seats, receiving significant support from voters. In addition, 150 independent candidates have also emerged victorious in the elections. A majority of these independent winners are seen leaning towards the Bharatiya Janata Party, with several publicly announcing their support for the BJP. As a result, a large portion of the overall winning candidates are considered to be BJP-aligned. The vote-counting process is nearing completion, and the Election Commission is expected to release the final results soon. The electoral process across the state was conducted peacefully and in an orderly manner, with effective cooperation from the administrative and security agencies.