The Madras High Court yesterday directed the state government to frame definite guidelines for the selection of law officers appearing in the High Court..The Court ordered the same in a PIL filed by Advocate V Vasanthkumar, who had challenged the Law Officers of High Court of Madras and its Bench at Madurai (Appointment) Rules, 2017 as being arbitrary, discriminatory and not in accordance with the law enunciated by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v Brijeshwar Singh..In particular, Vasanthkumar had challenged the method of selecting law officers as per Rule 5. It was submitted that Rule 5 (4) allowed the Advocate General to “pick and choose” eligible candidates of his choice, and was therefore discriminatory..It was also pointed out that there was no requirement of publication of notices to invite applications for the post of a law officer. Thereby, it was contended, a large section of eligible advocates was denied equal opportunity..Further, he had also contended that Rule 7 (1) was unreasonable. This Rule provides for removal of government law officers without reason by giving a month’s retainer fee in lieu of notice..Considering the presumption of validity, the Bench of Chief Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice Abdul Quddhose took the view that it need not strike down the Rules as such. It was noted that the Court has the duty to read down the statute to ensure conformity with the Constitution where possible. With this principle in mind, the Court has proceeded to interpret the impugned provisions harmoniously..The Court noted that Rule 7 cannot be struck down considering the “tremendous responsibility of Government Law Officers in protecting the interest of the State.” However, it held that individual cases of arbitrariness, unreasonableness or existence of extraneous factors may be subject to judicial review..As for the Advocate General’s powers under Rule 5, the Court noted that they were not unbridled. Rather, the Court held that the AG’s powers only extend to the preliminary scrutiny of applications before they are forwarded to the government..As per the Rules, the applications are then placed before a Selection Committee comprising the Advocate General, the Secretary (Public), the Secretary (Home) and the Secretary (Law). The Court noted that any interested person can make an application exercising his Right to Information to discern the reasons for withholding any candidate if required..Addressing the other concerns raised, the Bench has directed that certain measures be taken to ensure more transparency in the selection of law officers to the Court..In particular, it was noted that there were no guidelines regarding the selection of officers out of the eligible candidates..“The Rules, however, do not contain any guidelines with regard to the mode and method of selection from out of the eligible candidates forwarded by the Advocate General.”.On this aspect, the Court has opined,.“In our view, there should be prescribed guidelines laying down the criteria and norms of selection by giving weightage to Court appearances, advocacy, drafting skills, legal acumen, reported and unreported judgments, behaviour, integrity, reputation and the like. .No appointment should be made either for pursuing a political purpose or for giving some undue advantage to any section. When a Government Law Officer resigns or is removed or his/her tenure is not extended, he/she should be replaced by the State by an efficient, honest and competent lawyer….…No lawyer has a right to be appointed as a Government Law Officer, but, every eligible lawyer has a right to be considered for appointment, if he/she offers himself/herself for appointment.”.In order to rectify this lacuna, the Court directed the state government to frame guidelines for the selection of law officers..Further, the Court has also directed that as and when applications are invited for the appointment of law officers, notices intimating the same should be displayed in all recognised bar associations..The Court also noted that it need not go into the issue of appointment of law officers in lower courts, since the challenge pertained only to the appointment of law officers to the High Court..Read Order:
The Madras High Court yesterday directed the state government to frame definite guidelines for the selection of law officers appearing in the High Court..The Court ordered the same in a PIL filed by Advocate V Vasanthkumar, who had challenged the Law Officers of High Court of Madras and its Bench at Madurai (Appointment) Rules, 2017 as being arbitrary, discriminatory and not in accordance with the law enunciated by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v Brijeshwar Singh..In particular, Vasanthkumar had challenged the method of selecting law officers as per Rule 5. It was submitted that Rule 5 (4) allowed the Advocate General to “pick and choose” eligible candidates of his choice, and was therefore discriminatory..It was also pointed out that there was no requirement of publication of notices to invite applications for the post of a law officer. Thereby, it was contended, a large section of eligible advocates was denied equal opportunity..Further, he had also contended that Rule 7 (1) was unreasonable. This Rule provides for removal of government law officers without reason by giving a month’s retainer fee in lieu of notice..Considering the presumption of validity, the Bench of Chief Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice Abdul Quddhose took the view that it need not strike down the Rules as such. It was noted that the Court has the duty to read down the statute to ensure conformity with the Constitution where possible. With this principle in mind, the Court has proceeded to interpret the impugned provisions harmoniously..The Court noted that Rule 7 cannot be struck down considering the “tremendous responsibility of Government Law Officers in protecting the interest of the State.” However, it held that individual cases of arbitrariness, unreasonableness or existence of extraneous factors may be subject to judicial review..As for the Advocate General’s powers under Rule 5, the Court noted that they were not unbridled. Rather, the Court held that the AG’s powers only extend to the preliminary scrutiny of applications before they are forwarded to the government..As per the Rules, the applications are then placed before a Selection Committee comprising the Advocate General, the Secretary (Public), the Secretary (Home) and the Secretary (Law). The Court noted that any interested person can make an application exercising his Right to Information to discern the reasons for withholding any candidate if required..Addressing the other concerns raised, the Bench has directed that certain measures be taken to ensure more transparency in the selection of law officers to the Court..In particular, it was noted that there were no guidelines regarding the selection of officers out of the eligible candidates..“The Rules, however, do not contain any guidelines with regard to the mode and method of selection from out of the eligible candidates forwarded by the Advocate General.”.On this aspect, the Court has opined,.“In our view, there should be prescribed guidelines laying down the criteria and norms of selection by giving weightage to Court appearances, advocacy, drafting skills, legal acumen, reported and unreported judgments, behaviour, integrity, reputation and the like. .No appointment should be made either for pursuing a political purpose or for giving some undue advantage to any section. When a Government Law Officer resigns or is removed or his/her tenure is not extended, he/she should be replaced by the State by an efficient, honest and competent lawyer….…No lawyer has a right to be appointed as a Government Law Officer, but, every eligible lawyer has a right to be considered for appointment, if he/she offers himself/herself for appointment.”.In order to rectify this lacuna, the Court directed the state government to frame guidelines for the selection of law officers..Further, the Court has also directed that as and when applications are invited for the appointment of law officers, notices intimating the same should be displayed in all recognised bar associations..The Court also noted that it need not go into the issue of appointment of law officers in lower courts, since the challenge pertained only to the appointment of law officers to the High Court..Read Order:
![Madras HC calls for guidelines for transparent selection of Law Officers [Read Order]](http://media.assettype.com/barandbench%2Fimport%2F2017%2F06%2F20161005_152839-e1497453592482.jpg?w=480&auto=format%2Ccompress&fit=max)
