2010 (1) TMI 1095 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court: Advocate General's Eligibility, PIL Misuse, and Judicial Prudence

State of Uttaranchal Versus Balwant Singh Chaufal & Others

The Supreme Court ruled that the age limit for High Court Judges does not apply to the eligibility of the Advocate General. The Court criticized the ... Whether L. P. Nathani could hold the august Office of the Advocate General of Uttarakhand in view of Article 165 read with Article 217 of the Constitution? Held that:- In the present case a practicing lawyer has deliberately abused the process of the court. In that process, he has made a serious attempt to demean an important constitutional office. The petitioner ought to have known that the controversy which he has been raising in the petition stands concluded half a century ago and by a Division Bench judgment of Nagpur High Court in the case of Karkare (supra) the said case was approved by a Constitution Bench of this court. The controversy involved in this case is no longer res integra. It is unfortunate that even after such a clear enunciation of the legal position, a large number of similar petitions have been filed from time to time in various High Courts. The petitioner ought to have refrained from filing such a frivolous petition. Allow the appeals filed by the State and quash the proceedings of the Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 689 (M/B) of 2001 filed in the Uttaranchal High Court. Issues Involved:1. Eligibility for the appointment of Advocate General.2. Abuse of Public Interest Litigation (PIL).Detailed Analysis:1. Eligibility for the Appointment of Advocate General:The primary issue was whether Mr. Nathani, having attained the age of 62 years, was eligible to be appointed as the Advocate General of Uttarakhand under Article 165 read with Article 217 of the Constitution. The High Court had directed the State Government to decide on this issue within 15 days, which was stayed by the Supreme Court.Analysis:- Constitutional Provisions: Article 165 states that the Advocate General must be qualified to be appointed as a Judge of a High Court, and Article 217 outlines the qualifications for such an appointment, including the age limit of 62 years for High Court Judges.- High Court's Interpretation: The High Court held that the age limit in Article 217 pertains to the duration of a Judge's appointment, not a qualification. Therefore, the age limit does not apply to the Advocate General, who serves at the Governor's pleasure.- Supreme Court's Precedents: The Supreme Court referenced past judgments, including G.D. Karkare v. T.L. Shevde and others, which clarified that the age limit in Article 217 does not apply to the Advocate General. The Court reaffirmed that as long as the individual meets the qualifications in Article 217(2), they can be appointed as Advocate General irrespective of age.2. Abuse of Public Interest Litigation (PIL):The second issue was the misuse of PIL by the petitioner, a practicing lawyer, who challenged the appointment of Mr. Nathani despite the settled legal position.Analysis:- Judicial Observations: The Supreme Court observed that the petitioner had abused the judicial process by filing a frivolous PIL, which had already been settled by previous judgments.- Impact on Judicial System: The Court noted that such petitions waste judicial time and resources, preventing the Court from addressing genuine cases.- Need for Guidelines: The Supreme Court emphasized the need to curb the misuse of PIL by issuing guidelines to ensure that only genuine public interest cases are entertained. The Court directed High Courts to frame rules to encourage bona fide PILs and discourage those filed with ulterior motives.Separate Judgments:- Past Judgments Cited: The Supreme Court cited several past judgments to highlight the consistent legal position regarding the qualifications for the Advocate General and the misuse of PILs.- Costs Imposed: The Court imposed costs of Rs. 1,00,000 on the respondents for filing a frivolous PIL and directed the amount to be used for the welfare of young lawyers in Uttarakhand.Conclusion:The Supreme Court quashed the proceedings of the PIL filed in the High Court, reaffirming that the age limit in Article 217 does not apply to the Advocate General. The Court also issued comprehensive guidelines to prevent the misuse of PILs, emphasizing the need for judicial prudence and the protection of the judicial process from being abused by frivolous litigants.