State of Uttaranchal V. Balwant Singh Chaufal (2010) 3 SCC 402

State of Uttaranchal V. Balwant Singh Chaufal (2010) 3 SCC 402

Author: Ishika Goyal

Edited by: Sulesh Choudhary & Madhumita Saha

ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The case of State of Uttaranchal vs Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors revolves around the appointment of the advocate L.P Nathani as the Advocate General. The PIL was filed by the state, questioning the decision of the state regarding the qualifications in the appointment of the Advocate General that whether the criteria given is constitutional or not and for this article 165 and Article 217 of the Indian Constitution that was cited in court by petitioner.

The case centered on whether Nathani should hold the office and if the age limit for the Advocate General should be adhered to. The age restriction is imposed on High Court justices by Article 217. Whereas, it implies that the age should not apply to the appointment of Advocate General, the Supreme Court said. Furthermore, the case instituted novel protocols for submitting Public Interest Litigations (PILs), resulting in notable modifications to the PIL filing process. This decision encouraged the more responsible and sincere use of PILs by streamlining the procedure for filing them and clarifying the guidelines for the Advocate General’s appointment.

Keywords (Minimum 5):

  1. Advocate General
  2. High Court
  • Public Interest Litigation
  1. Article 165
  2. Article 217

CASE DETAILS

The case details are as the follows:

       i)            Judgement Cause Title / Case Name State of Uttaranchal vs Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors.
     ii)            Case Number Civil Appeal Nos. 1134-1135 of 2002
   iii)            Judgement Date 18th January 2010
    iv)            Court Supreme Court of India
      v)            Quorum / Constitution of Bench Justices Mukundakam Sharma, Dalveer Bhandari
    vi)            Author / Name of Judges Justice Dalveer Bhandari
  vii)            Citation AIR 2010 SC 2550, 2010 AIR SCW 1029
viii)            Legal Provisions Involved Indian Constitution, article 165, article 217, writ petition

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

In this case, the rules governing the high court’s advocate general’s nomination are in question.

Even the Government of State Uttaranchal has even lodged a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) to challenge to the decision that was made by the High Court on Nathani’s appointment. The government questioned the qualifications and eligibility standards, especially the maximum age limit for these advocates’ judicial appointments.
Numerous of these issues were addressed by the Supreme Court. Article 2017 states that the requirements for High Court judges should not apply to the Advocate General’s age restriction. This ruling made it clear what the Advocate General’s specific responsibilities are, guaranteeing that their appointment procedure is separate from the laws governing High Court justices.

Article 165 and 217 of the Indian constitution were the most highlighted which talks about the appointment of the judge of the high court and their term of offices.This case also set guidelines for filing the public interest litigation and bringing a revolution in Pil in India.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Procedural Background of the Case

The case does not appeal against the decision of the Uttaranchal High Court in form of a public interest litigation (PIL).

Factual Background of the Case

Advocate L.P Nathani was appointed as the Advocate General of Uttaranchal and his decision was challenged by the state in the form of Public Interest Litigation. It has been challenged under Article 165 read with Article 217 of the Constitution of India. They wrote a petition asking whether Nathan should hold the office or not.

Additionally, the Article 165 and 217 deals with appointment of the Advocate General in India and it also provides guidelines and qualifications for the same which shall be followed judiciously.

It was also argued that whether a person beyond the age of 62 can be the Advocate General or not.

The High Court in this matter ordered that the state government shall review their decision again and report to the High Court within the time limit of 15 days.

LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

  1. Whether there is an age limit for a High Court judge to be appointed as an Advocate General?
  2. whether L.P Nathani was to hold the office or not as the Advocate General?

PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS

It was submitted by the petitioner that the Advocate General’s appointment is made at the time when the High Court Judges’ age limit is not applicable. This was debated by citing earlierrulings.
Conversely, the appellant emphasized that the Advocate General should be appointed without regard to age.

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

It was showed that the respondent was not serious in the case. They did not appear for the case in the Supreme Court which resulted in court questioning the same thing regarding the appointment.

This portrayed them as the non-serious party through which the case was not much in their favour.

RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

ARTICLE 165: “Advocate General for the State

  1. The Governor of each State will designate an individual to serve as the State’s Advocate-General who meets the requirements to be appointed as a High Court Judge.
  2. The Advocate General’s responsibilities include providing the State Government with legal advice on matters of this nature, carrying out other legal tasks as they may be delegated to him by the Governor from time to time. Furthermore, carrying out any furthermore tasks that was assigned to him by the help of the Constitution & any other law currently is in effect.
  3. The Governor may decide how much money the Advocate General will get and he or she will serve in that capacity. [1]

ARTICLE 217: “Appointment and conditions of the office of a Judge of a High Court

  1. To be eligible for appointment as a judge of the Supreme Court, an individual must be an Indian citizen and fulfill one of the following criteria:
    They must have either

(a) held a judicial position inside the boundaries of India for a minimum of ten years or more, or

(b) worked as an advocate for a High Court or two or more of these courts in succession for a minimum of ten years. [2]

JUDGEMENT

RATIO DECIDENDI

In this case, the Supreme Court decided in the appellant’s favour, holding that the Advocate General’s appointment age should not be limited to the High Court judges’ age limit as stated in Article 217. The Advocate General’s appointment procedures are different from those for High Court justices, the court made clear.

Consequently, the Supreme Court determined that the Advocate General is not constrained by the age limitations imposed on justices of the High Court. The decision guarantees that the standards for choosing an Advocate General will remain distinct and unaffected by the laws governing the High Court. This difference acknowledges the special position & responsibilities of the Advocate General and permits more latitude in the appointment process.

OBITER DICTA

The court has also maintained that the employment of private lawsuits (PILs) have burdened the legal system excessively. Whereas, He has also pointed out that even though PILs are supposed to address matters of public interest, a lot of them are filed for frivolous or selfish purposes. This abuse backlogs the courts, causing delays and taking focus away from actual problems that need prompt solution.

In order to make sure that PILs actually serve the public interest, the court stressed the need of preserving their integrity and demanded stringent oversight. The primary goal of Public Interest Litigations (PILs), which is to uphold justice in the public interest, is compromised when PILs are misused, in addition to destroying important judicial tools.

CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The Supreme Court ruled that the duration of the sentence in Article 217 does not apply to the Advocate General. Although, This is because the Law has a specific term of the Attorney General in the third part of Article 165. Nevertheless, this implies that the Attorney General serves at the governor’s leisure. The Court further stated that the Advocate General is exempt from the salary and tenure regulations that govern Supreme Court judges. He clarified that the role of Advocate General is incompatible with the retirement age of Supreme Court judges. The court determined that this request, which surfaced as a public matter, constituted an abuse of the legal system. As a result, the application was denied and the petitioner was had to pay charges of Rs 10,000. In order to prevent judicial system misuse, the Court also suggested non-monetary penalties for PILs filed on other grounds.

REFERENCES

Important Cases Referred

  1. Ghanshyam Chandra Mathur v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors
  2. Dr Chandra Bhan Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors
  3. M.C Mehta & Another v. Union of India & Others AIR 1987 SC 549
  4. Rural Litigation an Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P., AIR 1985 SC 652
  5. Atlas Cycle Industries v. Their Workmen, 1962 Supp. (3) SCR 89
  6. G.D Karkare v. T.L. Shevde, AIR 1952 Nagpur 330

Important Statutes Referred

  1. Constitution of India (Article 165 and Article 217)
  2. Public Interest Litigation

Citations:

  1. https://bnblegal.com/landmark/state-uttaranchal-vs-balwant-singh-chaufal-others/
  2. https://law.asia/court-cracks-down-on-abuse-of-public-interest-litigation/

ENDNOTES

[1] Article 165, Constitution of India

[2] Article 217, Constitution of India