2004 (1) TMI 689 - SC - Indian Laws

State's Appointment of Additional Advocate Generals Upheld Under Article 162

M.T. KHAN & ORS. Versus GOVT. OF A.P. & ORS.

The Supreme Court held that while the State cannot appoint multiple Advocate Generals under Article 165 of the Constitution of India, the appointment of ... Whether a State has a authority to appoint Additional Advocate General in terms of Article 165 of the Constitution of India? Issues:- Authority of a State to appoint Additional Advocate General in terms of Article 165 of the Constitution of India.Analysis:The core issue in this appeal was the authority of a State to appoint Additional Advocate General in accordance with Article 165 of the Constitution of India. The appellants challenged the appointment of two Additional Advocate Generals by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, arguing that Article 165 does not contemplate the appointment of more than one Advocate General. The High Court upheld the appointment, reasoning that singular provisions could include plural, and citing precedents from other states where Additional Advocate Generals were appointed. The appellants contended that Article 165 is clear and unambiguous, not open to interpretation, and the appointment of Additional Advocate Generals was without jurisdiction. They argued that allowing such appointments would lead to absurd interpretations of other constitutional articles. The respondents justified the need for Additional Advocate Generals due to increased state activities, suggesting that even if not under Article 165, the power to appoint them exists under Article 162.The Supreme Court analyzed Article 165 and emphasized that the Governor appoints a person qualified to be a High Court Judge as Advocate General, with similar qualifications required for other constitutional posts. The Court highlighted that the constitutional scheme does not envision multiple persons performing the duties of a single constitutional post, to avoid conflicting opinions and chaos. The Advocate General's functions, both constitutional and statutory, are of public importance and must be performed by a single individual. The Court clarified that while the State can appoint multiple lawyers to defend it, only one Advocate General can be appointed. The Court disagreed with the High Courts' interpretation of singular provisions, emphasizing the need to consider the context of the Constitution.Regarding the source of power for appointing Additional Advocate Generals, the Court held that while the appointments could not be traced to Article 165, they could be justified under Article 162. The Court cited precedents where incorrect citations of law provisions did not invalidate orders if the power existed. It was established that the State, in the absence of legislation, could appoint lawyers of its choice under Article 162 but such appointments did not confer constitutional status. Consequently, the Court upheld the appointment of Additional Advocate Generals by the State, dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment under appeal, albeit on different grounds. No costs were awarded in the matter.