High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Appointment Of Haryana AG

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a petition challenging the appointment of the Advocate General of Haryana, holding that once the constitutional eligibility under Article 165 of the Constitution is satisfied, allegations of impropriety or desirability are beyond the limited scope of quo warranto jurisdiction.

The Court noted that a bare perusal of Article 165 of the Constitution reveals that a person who is qualified to be appointed as a Judge of a High Court is eligible to be appointed as Advocate General of the State concerned.

Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry said,

"to be qualified to be appointed as a High Court Judge a person needs to be a citizen of India and having practiced at least 10 years as an Advocate in the High Court. In the present case, respondent no.2 (AG Haryana Pravindra Singh Chauhan), was being citizen of India and is practicing as an Advocate for more than 10 years prior to his appointment as an Advocate General, which fact is not disputed in the petition...Thus, the requirement of Article 165 of the Constitution is satisfied."

The petition was filed invoking Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, seeking a writ of quo warranto against Pravindra Singh Chauhan, Advocate General, State of Haryana.

The petitioner alleged that his appointment was unconstitutional, violative of Article 165(1), and contrary to the standards applicable for appointment of High Court Judges, including the Memorandum of Procedure governing judicial appointments.

It was argued that since Chauhan allegedly did not meet the higher standards expected for a High Court Judge, he could not validly hold the constitutional office of Advocate General.

The Court reiterated that for issuance of a writ of quo warranto, the petitioner must establish a lack of constitutional or statutory eligibility in the holder of the office.

The Bench examined Article 165 of the Constitution, which provides that:

“The Governor of each State shall appoint a person who is qualified to be appointed a Judge of a High Court to be Advocate General for the State.”

The Court then referred to Article 217, which prescribes the qualifications for appointment as a High Court Judge, namely, Citizenship of India; and at least 10 years' practice as an Advocate of a High Court or holding judicial office for the prescribed period.

It further found that the constitutional prerequisites under Article 165 were fully satisfied by Chauhan.

Allegations Of Impropriety: Not Justiciable In Quo Warranto

Rejecting the petitioner's broader challenge, the Court clarified that the scope of quo warranto is confined strictly to examining eligibility.

"As regards the allegations of impropriety or misdemeanour alleged against respondent No.2, the same cannot be examined while deciding the issue of issuance of a writ of quo warranto. The scope of such proceedings is confined strictly to the constitutional or statutory eligibility of the person holding a statutory or constitutional office," the Court said.

It added that the alleged misdemeanour or impropriety in the discharge of professional functions prior to or subsequent to as Advocate General has no bearing on the maintainability or grant of a writ of quo warranto.

Observing that "since the essential ingredients for issuance of a writ of quo warranto are not satisfied, this Court need not enter into the prolixity of discussion of various citations relied upon by the petitioner," the plea was dismissed.

Mr. Jagmohan Singh Bhatti, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Ankur Mittal, Senior Advocate (Arguing Counsel) With Mr. Sourav Mago, Deputy A.G., Haryana,

Mr. Gaurav Bansal, Deputy A.G., Haryana, and Ms. Kushaldeep Kaur, Advocate, for the State of Haryana.

Title: Pradeep Singh Advocate v. State of Haryana and others

Click here to read order