Supreme Court: Representative imageThe Supreme Court has put up searching questions on the curious practice of small states in north and north eastern states appointing scores of additional and assistant advocate generals, who represent the state in courts.
Haryana, under Congress Chief Minister Bhupinder Singh Hooda had appointed nearly 200 lawyers as additional and assistant advocate generals. His successor Manohar Lal Khattar of BJP who had criticised Hooda for indiscriminately appointing relatives of politicians, judges and bureacrats, had promised he will be more circumspect. However, he appointed 10 additional advocate generals in the first list itself. Later, succumbing to the pressure from his own ministers, MLAs and officials, Manohar Lal appointed 42 more lawyers as additional and assistant advocate generals.
In Jammu and Kashmir, the new Chief Minister, Mufti Mohammed Sayeed, approved appointment of relatives of his own ministers, serving judges and even of militant leaders. But the coalition partner BJP raised a ruckus that it should also get the share of legal posts. Although Mufti's PDP, which is the larger partner in the coalition, first argued that since law portfolio had gone to it, all legal officers should be nominated by it, the Chief Minister later conceded to BJP's demand.
Punjab has more than 120 lawyers who has these titles. Small states in the north east such Nagaland, Mizoram, Manipur and Meghalaya not only appoint Delhi-based lawyers as their advocate generals, but give the designations liberally to advocates from different state capitals. Thus, a lawyer in Patna or Bhubaneshwar could be additional advocate general of a north eastern state even though the high courts in Patna or Bhubhaneshwar may not handle any cases from north east.
Interestingly, the advocate general of Haryana had said once said that he had never seen majority of the additional and assistant advocate generals appointed by Chief Minister Hooda.
The big states in the country have just one or two additional advocate generals, depending more on standing counsel and special prosecutors to handle their cases in the Supreme Court and high courts.
The Supreme Court wondered why states had to have so many people designated as additional advocate generals, when the Government of India has only eight to 10 additional solicitors generals in Delhi, and one each in important state capitals to represent the centre.
A group of lawyers had alleged that the appointment of lawyers was based not on merit, but political favouritism. It has also been alleged that several national office bearers of Congress and BJP have had their quotas in legal appointments. A media report had alleged that those who run tea shops and gymnasiums in Delhi and neighbouring states had the title of assistant advocate general written in their letterheads.
The Constitution has said that every state should have an Advocate General who would represent the state before higher courts and would also be the chief legal adviser to the Chief Minister and the Governor. He has the right to take part in the proceedings of the state assembly and its committees, without the voting right.
The constitution says the Advocate General should be a person who is qualified to be the judge of a high court. In addition, the Advocate General can assist the State Assembly in critical legal matters, including legislation to regulate appointment and payment of salaries.
But the Supreme Court has found that several states have not bothered to lay down the qualifications and guidelines for the appointment of advocates, which happens more by recommendation. Now the Supreme Court is considering directions that the discretionary power of the Chief Ministers and Law Ministers to appoint senior government lawyers should be circumscribed by description of minimum qualification and eligibility criteria.
Tailpiece: Law Minister D.V. Sadananda Gowda succeeded in persuading the Prime Minister to agree for reappointment of the Law Commission, which considers new laws to be adopted by the government. Even though the Prime Minister's Office wanted to entrust the job of holding consultations on new laws with the national law universities, Gowda argued that the commission headed by a former judge would function better under the Law Ministry.
Disclaimer
The comments posted here/below/in the given space are not on behalf of Manorama. The person posting the comment will be in sole ownership of its responsibility. According to the central government's IT rules, obscene or offensive statement made against a person, religion, community or nation is a punishable offense, and legal action would be taken against people who indulge in such activities.