A petition has been filed in the Supreme Court praying for framing rules and guidelines for the appointment of the Attorney General..The petition has been filed by a law student Vibhor Anand. Anand has also sought removal of current Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi from the post..In his petition, Anand has contended that the appointment of the Attorney General is done behind closed doors without following any prescribed procedure, reducing it to a political appointment based on the whims and fancies of the political class. This, Anand has contended, is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution..Anand has further submitted that the post of Attorney General is an “equal Constitutional post” as that of a Supreme Court judge but though the Constitution sets out criteria for a person to be appointed as Supreme Court judge, it is silent with respect to the Attorney General..As per the petition,.“Article 124 of Constitution of India expressly provides the detailed procedures of appointment, tenure, age, oath and removal of the judges of the Supreme Court and the Article 76 of the Constitution of India is completely silent on these aspects, however both the post are constitutional post (sic)..That procedure adopted under article 124(2) for appointment of Supreme Court judge is in violation of Article 14 as the said procedure is in contradiction with the procedure established in appointment of the Attorney General of India and the Article 76(1).”.The absence of a prescribed procedure for the appointment of Attorney General, the petitioner has submitted, “is not only dangerous for democracy but also violates the Basic Structure of the Constitution of India.”.The Petitioner has contended that since the Constitution is silent on the procedure to be adopted in selecting and appointing the Attorney General for India, “there is a need for interpretation of law in that regard.” He has, therefore, sought for framing guidelines and rules with the respect to the appointment of Attorney General..Regarding the appointment of Mukul Rohatgi as the Attorney General, Anand has alleged the following:.“That the present Union Govt./Respondents 1 came into power on 26th May 2014, and on 28th May 2014 it was widely circulated in all National Newspapers that Sh. Mukul Rohtagi has consented to become the 14th Attorney General of India and ultimately it proves true. It is submitted this proves that it was pre decided and the new Govt/respondent-1 without any established procedure picked him for this Constitutional Post because of his close association with the ruling party/respondent-1.”.Anand has, therefore, prayed for declaring the appointment of Mukul Rohatgi to the post of Attorney General as null and void..The case is listed for chamber hearing on July 10. Anand had earlier filed a petition in the Supreme Court seeking an investigation into a “laptop scam” involving Delhi judges.
A petition has been filed in the Supreme Court praying for framing rules and guidelines for the appointment of the Attorney General..The petition has been filed by a law student Vibhor Anand. Anand has also sought removal of current Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi from the post..In his petition, Anand has contended that the appointment of the Attorney General is done behind closed doors without following any prescribed procedure, reducing it to a political appointment based on the whims and fancies of the political class. This, Anand has contended, is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution..Anand has further submitted that the post of Attorney General is an “equal Constitutional post” as that of a Supreme Court judge but though the Constitution sets out criteria for a person to be appointed as Supreme Court judge, it is silent with respect to the Attorney General..As per the petition,.“Article 124 of Constitution of India expressly provides the detailed procedures of appointment, tenure, age, oath and removal of the judges of the Supreme Court and the Article 76 of the Constitution of India is completely silent on these aspects, however both the post are constitutional post (sic)..That procedure adopted under article 124(2) for appointment of Supreme Court judge is in violation of Article 14 as the said procedure is in contradiction with the procedure established in appointment of the Attorney General of India and the Article 76(1).”.The absence of a prescribed procedure for the appointment of Attorney General, the petitioner has submitted, “is not only dangerous for democracy but also violates the Basic Structure of the Constitution of India.”.The Petitioner has contended that since the Constitution is silent on the procedure to be adopted in selecting and appointing the Attorney General for India, “there is a need for interpretation of law in that regard.” He has, therefore, sought for framing guidelines and rules with the respect to the appointment of Attorney General..Regarding the appointment of Mukul Rohatgi as the Attorney General, Anand has alleged the following:.“That the present Union Govt./Respondents 1 came into power on 26th May 2014, and on 28th May 2014 it was widely circulated in all National Newspapers that Sh. Mukul Rohtagi has consented to become the 14th Attorney General of India and ultimately it proves true. It is submitted this proves that it was pre decided and the new Govt/respondent-1 without any established procedure picked him for this Constitutional Post because of his close association with the ruling party/respondent-1.”.Anand has, therefore, prayed for declaring the appointment of Mukul Rohatgi to the post of Attorney General as null and void..The case is listed for chamber hearing on July 10. Anand had earlier filed a petition in the Supreme Court seeking an investigation into a “laptop scam” involving Delhi judges.
