The Madras High Court has sought the views of the State government to a public interest litigation (PIL) petition filed by a lawyer to declare the Appointment of Law Officers of High Court of Madras and its Bench at Madurai (Appointment) Rules of 2017 as illegal, arbitrary and in defiance of a long line of judgements of the Supreme court.
A Division Bench of Justices T. S. Sivagnanam and K. Ravichandrabaabu ordered notice to the Chief Secretary on the PIL petition filed and argued in person by advocate V. Vasanthakumar. The petitioner contended that the rules, framed by the State after another case filed by him last year, do not ensure selection of candidates in an objective and transparent manner.
“The law officers are conducting cases on behalf of the State and not at the instance of the ruling party. In reality, it is an unwritten rule that whichever party comes to power, that party’s advocates/sympathisers are appointed as law officers and, sometimes, the appointment of Advocate General and Public Prosecutor is also not an exception to that rule.
“Integrity, capability, honesty, efficiency, legal acumen of the lawyers has become secondary and loyalty to the party in power gets primacy to the appointment as law officers,” the petitioner said and claimed that the rules under challenge only help “perpetuate the irregularities committed by the State in appointment of law officers.”
He also alleged that the State Government had not followed the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab versus Brijeshwar Singh Chahal on March 30, 2016 before framing the rules for appointment of law officers.
SC judgement
In that judgement, the apex court had impressed upon the need for a transparent and credible process to select the best lawyers as law officers. “We have not been able to persuade ourselves to accept the view that even when the appointments are made to offices heavily remunerated from the public exchequer, the same can or ought to remain unregulated. That is particularly so when those appointed are expected to discharge important public functions affecting not only State interest but the quality of justice.
“If a government counsel discharges an important public function and if it is the primary duty of those running the affairs of the government to act fairly, objectively and on a non-discriminatory basis, there is no option for them except to choose the best at the bar out of those who are willing and at times keen to work as State counsel.
“It is also their duty to ensure that the process by which the best are selected is transparent and credible. Abdicating that important function in favour of the Advocate General of the State who, in turn, has neither the assistance of norms or procedure to follow nor a mechanism for assessment of merit will be self-defeating,” the Supreme Court had said.
After the extracting the judgement extensively in his affidavit, the PIL petitioner said the rules under challenge do not strictly comply with the norms laid down by the apex court. He also recalled Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer to have stressed that State should engage competent lawyers without hunting for political partisans regardless of capability.
