Back
DALVEER BHANDARI
State of Uttaranchal – Appellant
Versus
Balwant Singh Chaufal – Respondent
What are the qualifications and age limits for appointing an Advocate General for a State and the Attorney General for India? What is the duty of the court when a controversy has already been settled by an authoritative judgment? How should the courts deal with frivolous public interest litigation?
Key Points: - An Advocate General for the State can be appointed after attaining the age of 62 years, and the Attorney General for India can be appointed after attaining the age of 65 years (!) (!) . - Courts have a bounden duty to ensure that a controversy once settled by an authoritative judgment is not reopened unless there are extraordinary reasons (!) (!) . - Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is an important jurisdiction that has been developed indigenously in India to provide access to justice for the deprived and vulnerable sections of society (!) (!) (!) . - The Indian courts have expanded the meaning of "life and liberty" under Article 21 and diluted the rule of locus standi to provide access to justice (!) (!) . - PIL has evolved through three phases: protecting fundamental rights of marginalized groups, preserving ecology and environment, and maintaining probity and transparency in governance (!) (!) (!) . - Abuse of PIL by filing petitions with oblique motives is a concern, and while genuine PIL should be encouraged, frivolous PIL should be discouraged (!) (!) . - Courts should prima facie verify the credentials of the petitioner, the correctness of the petition's contents, and ensure substantial public interest is involved before entertaining a PIL (!) (!) (!) . - Frivolous PIL petitions can be curbed by imposing exemplary costs or other methods to discourage petitions filed for extraneous considerations (!) . - The petition in this case was a clear abuse of the process of law, filed for extraneous considerations and with the potential to demean a constitutional office (!) (!) . - The appeals were allowed, the High Court proceedings were quashed, and the respondents were directed to pay costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- (!) .
JUDGMENT
Dalveer Bhandari, J.—
1. These appeals have been filed by the State of Uttaranchal (now Uttarakhand) against the orders dated 12.7.2001 and 1.8.2001 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 689 (M/B) of 2001.
2. The appointment of L. P. Nathani was challenged before the High Court in a Public Interest Litigation on the ground that he could not hold the august Office of the Advocate General of Uttarakhand in view of Article 165 read with Article 217 of the Constitution. According to the respondent, Mr. Nathani was ineligible to be appointed as the Advocate General because he had attained the age of 62 years much before he was appointed as the Advocate General. The High Court entertained the petition and directed the State Government to take decision on the issue raised within 15 days and apprise the same to the High Court.
3. The State of Uttaranchal preferred special leave petitions before this Court on 6.8.2001. This Court vide order dated 9.8.2001 stayed the operation of the impugned judgment of the High Court. Thereafter on 11.2.2002, this Court granted leave and directed that the stay already gra
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
