The Andhra Pradesh High Court is reportedly displeased with the functioning of the legal machinery under the state government led by Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu, according to reports in a section of the media.
Several senior judges are said to be unhappy with the lack of seriousness shown by the state government's legal counsels, including Advocate General Dammalapati Srinivas, in responding to court directions. This has allegedly led to inordinate and undesirable delays in resolving pending matters.
Reports suggest that the judges have even conveyed their dissatisfaction directly to Chief Minister Naidu over the poor performance of the legal team — comprising government pleaders and public prosecutors — who function under the supervision of the Advocate General.
Apparently, the judges have noted that neither the Advocate General nor his team members are consistently appearing for scheduled court hearings, even in high-stakes revenue cases involving significant financial implications.
Dammalapati Srinivas’s team has reportedly been seeking repeated adjournments without valid reasons, particularly in cases related to assigned lands. As a result, the state government has allegedly suffered adverse judgments in several instances.
There are also allegations that the legal team is not making adequate efforts to safeguard the government's interests.
For example, in a red-sanders smuggling case, the accused were granted bail — reportedly because the public prosecutors failed to present a strong opposition.
Judges are also said to be upset with the state government’s tendency to engage private counsels, including senior advocates from Delhi and elsewhere, despite already having a designated team of public prosecutors and assistant public prosecutors.
The government has reportedly spent several crores of rupees on these senior advocates, often just for filing counters or requesting adjournments — raising serious concerns about the competence of the existing legal apparatus. Ironically, state-appointed prosecutors are also said to be claiming fees for the same cases.
Additionally, it was reportedly pointed out that even in serious cases brought before the Chief Justice’s bench, the Advocate General himself does not appear, delegating instead to special government pleaders.
This, the judges believe, is detrimental — especially in public interest litigations (PILs) involving sensitive issues like the environment and urban planning, where courts are more likely to issue sweeping orders.
