Advocate-General's right to appear in contempt proceedings upheld where State assignment and rules permitted legal representation.

Article 165 confers constitutional status on the Advocate-General and permits the Governor to assign duties of a legal character, including appearance in proceedings where the State is interested. The Advocate-General also retains the ordinary right to practise as an advocate, and the office does not make him a Government servant. On the rules described, contempt matters were placed with the Government Advocate, but the governing provisions did not bar the Advocate-General from appearing, and the discretion under Rule 10(b) was preserved. The stated view is that a State direction to appear in defence in contempt proceedings was within the constitutional and regulatory scheme, and the contrary construction of the rules was incorrect.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Advocate-General of a State could appear in defence of a party in contempt proceedings when the State Government assigned him that work and the governing rules did not require him to conduct such proceedings on behalf of the State.

Analysis: Article 165 of the Constitution confers on the Advocate-General a constitutional status and authorises the Governor to assign to him duties of a legal character. A State Government may therefore refer to him the work of appearing in legal proceedings in which the State is interested. Independently, the Advocate-General was also entitled to practise as an advocate under Section 14 of the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926, and nothing in his office made him a Government servant. The relevant Government rules showed that contempt proceedings were placed in the charge of the Government Advocate under Rule 41(5), while Rule 8 did not require the Advocate-General to appear in contempt matters. Rule 10(b), properly understood, left to the Advocate-General's own judgment whether to accept private work in a matter on which Government might later seek advice. The Government's direction to him to appear for the appellant therefore fell within the constitutional and regulatory scheme, and the High Court's contrary view overlooked the scope of Article 165(2) and misread the rules.

Conclusion: The Advocate-General was entitled to appear in defence of the appellant in the contempt proceedings, and the objection to his appearance was untenable.

Ratio Decidendi: An Advocate-General may appear in legal proceedings for a party when the State validly assigns that duty and the governing rules do not prohibit such appearance, because Article 165 permits assignment of duties of a legal character and the office does not exclude the ordinary right to practise as an advocate.

---