Madras High Court dismisses PIL to quash appointment of two Additional Advocates General, imposes costs on petitioner

The Madras High Court on Friday dismissed with costs a public interest litigation (PIL) petition seeking quashing of the appointment of two Tamil Nadu Additional Advocates General (AAGs) [H Rajaram v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and ors]..The petition had challenged as unconstitutional a notification appointing Senior Advocate V Krishnamurthy and Advocate Amit Anand Tiwari as AAGs of Tamil Nadu to represent the State before the Supreme Court..A Bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice PD Audikesavalu found that there was no merit in the plea. ."Though the submission in this case is commenced with the caveat that the personnel appointed are not sought to be attacked, it is possible that it is such personnel against whom the petitioner canvasses ... There is no merit in the petition and it may have been better if the petition had not been pressed", the Court said. .The Bench also recounted that the Court had earlier asked the petitioner to reconsider his plea and consult with senior members of the Bar "as to whether the seemingly trivial matter had to be pursued."."Such request was not made because the court was shy of dismissing or not receiving an undeserving petition but to ensure that a sense of harmony prevailed and there was no discord as to who ought to represent the State, irrespective of whichever government may be in power. Unfortunately, the court's attempt may have exposed the court to the subsequent filing of documents to sustain an utterly unmeritorious cause," the Court said. .The Bench also criticised the petitioner for having earlier relied on a notification that was outdated. ."For a start, it was an uninformed petition in that the petitioner was not even aware as to which notification applied to the matter as the notification sought to be assailed had been amended. It was irresponsible on the part of the petitioner to approach this court with a public interest litigation by relying on an outdated notification," the Court observed. .Further, arguments on the appointment notification regarding difference between "an order made in the name of the Governor and an order made on the authority of the Governor", also failed to convince the Court. .The Court acknowledged that, in this case, Article 165 of the Constitution (which deals with appointment of "Advocate General" of a State) ought not to have been referred to in one of the challenged notifications. However, it proceeded to observe:."The authority to appoint in this case is under a notification issued by the government itself, as amended. Such notification permits regular advocates to be named as representing the State in matters before the High court and even the Supreme Court. Further, when an authority has the jurisdiction to pronounce on any aspect, the mere reference to a wrong source or an erroneous provision would have no bearing on the power of the functionary to carry out the relevant action.".With these observations, the plea was dismissed. .[Read Order]