Click the Play button to listen to article

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh on Monday issued notice to the Union Territory government on a Public Interest Litigation seeking judicial intervention for filling up the post of Advocate General, which has been lying vacant for nearly two years.

The PIL came up before a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati, with Justice Rajnesh Oswal, which sought the government's response through the Chief Secretary and Law Secretary. The response has been directed to be filed by October 21.

The PIL has been filed by Harsh Dubey, an advocate practising before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the competent authority to take immediate and effective steps for filling up the post of Advocate General in accordance with law.

In his petition Harsh contends, "The continued vacancy of such an important constitutional office has serious ramifications upon the administration of justice, effective conduct of Government litigation and discharge of various statutory functions in which the office of the Advocate General has a role to play."

The office of the Advocate General for the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir is a constitutional office created under Section 79 of the Jammu & Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, which provides that the Lieutenant Governor shall appoint a person qualified to be appointed a Judge of the High Court as Advocate General.

Sub-section (2) of Section 79 casts upon the Advocate General the duty to give advice to the Government upon legal matters and to perform such other duties of a legal character as may be referred or assigned, besides discharging functions conferred by the Constitution or any other law in force. Sub-section (3) confers upon the Advocate General the right of audience in all courts in the Union Territory.

According to the petition, the post of Advocate General has remained vacant for a considerable period, giving rise to concerns regarding the effective discharge of the constitutional, statutory and legal functions attached to the office. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 22.08.2026 before the Lieutenant Governor, the Chief Minister and the Chief Secretary, requesting immediate steps for appointment of a regular Advocate General and highlighting the difficulties arising from the continued vacancy. No effective institutional action having been taken, the petitioner approached the High Court.

The petition states that the issue had already come to the notice of the High Court in another petition wherein the Court specifically took note of the vacancy in the office of the Advocate General and observed the relevance of the office in the context of proceedings under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court has in that petition observed that the continued vacancy was leaving a statutory provision practically inoperative.

Highlighting the implications of this vacancy on the on the Advocates Welfare the petition further states under Section 4(3)(a) of the Act, the Advocate General of a State is the ex officio Chairperson of the Trustee Committee, with a proviso that where there is no Advocate General, the appropriate Government shall nominate a senior advocate to be Chairperson.

The petition contends that the continued vacancy has an adverse impact upon the functioning of the Trustee Committee and that legitimate welfare claims and statutory functions concerning members of the Bar are being adversely affected.

The petitioner has averred that he has no personal, private, pecuniary or oblique motive in filing the petition and that he does not seek appointment of any particular person to the office. The limited grievance, according to the petition, is that the competent constitutional authority ought to take appropriate, expeditious and meaningful steps for filling up the constitutional office in accordance with law.

The petitioner has sought a mandamus directing the respondents to forthwith initiate and complete the process contemplated under Section 79 of the Jammu & Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 for appointment of an Advocate General and to take a decision thereon within such reasonable time as may be fixed by the Court.

It has also prayed for a direction to take appropriate measures for ensuring the smooth and effective functioning of the Jammu & Kashmir Advocates' Welfare Fund Trustee Committee and a direction to place before the Court an affidavit disclosing the reasons for the continued vacancy of the office and the steps, if any, taken since the office fell vacant.

Case Title: Harsh Dubey v. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir and Others

Appearances

Petitioner: Advocate Kannu Karan Prasher


Tags: