You are on page 1of 43

LIST OF EVENTS/SYNOPSIS

26.5.2014 The present Centre Government came into


power headed
Narender Modi

26,5,2014 Print

by Honble

and

Prime

Electronics

Minister

Sh.

media widely

circulated in all national News Papers. One of the


news paper namely Hindu printed the news as
under Rohtagi may be the next Attorney General

28.5.2014 The
Respondent
no.2
gave
extensive interview in the print and electronics media
and said news items were widely circulated in all
national News Papers. One of the news paper
namely Hindu printed the news as under

Mukul Rohtagi to take over as


Attorney General
The eminent Supreme Court Lawyers
said that he has been offered the office of the top law
office in the government and he has given his consent
to it.

Mr Rohatagi said that his top priority


as the AG would be to streamline litigation in the
Supreme Court

I will see that the superiors court are


not flooded with frivolous and petty litigation, he
said. He would make all efforts to check that the
government did not involve itself in inter-ministerial
litigation.

Mr Rohtagi has represented the Gujrat


government in the Supreme Court in many cases on
the 2002 Gujrat riots and fake encounter. These
include the Best Bakery and Zahira Sheikh Cases.

14.6.2014 Respondent-4 was appointed as Attorney


General of India for a fixed period of three years.

It is submitted this proves that it was pre decided


and the new Govt/respondent-1 without any
established procedure picked respondent-2 for this
Constitutional Post because of his close association
with the ruling party/respondent-1
It is relevant to mention here that aforesaid
sequence only point out that respondent - 4 was
appointed as Attorney General of India without
following any procedure and of law and is solely based
upon pick and chose policy , done behind the close
door by the political masters and appointment is done
and charge of the said post is taken by the person
appointed without taking oath of office and secrecy.

It is submitted the Transparency, Accountability in


public life & fair judicial action are the right answer to
check increasing menace of violation of legal rights,
hence judicial interference/review is necessary to
make the constitutional post of Attorney General of
India/ meaningful and to bring out from the clutches
of politician who have made the constitutional post as
political post with vested interest as decision are taken
behind the door without following emphzero
accountability and zero transparency of
constitutional post of Attorney General of India.

the

It is submitted the political establishment uses to


accommodate their favourite such brazen display of
power is possible because of lack of clear provisions in
legislation on selection process and now time has come
to judicial scanner as Govt. have been sluggish in
notifying detailed guidelines that can ensure open,
transparent and competitive selections
important public office/constitutional post.

to

this

It is submitted in Association for Development Vs.


Union Of India 2010 and 2013 Delhi High Court
emphasised the need for fair and transparent
appointments and urge the ministry of women and
child development to develop objective evaluation
methods for appointments.
It is submitted appointment of respondent-2 is
not based on any objective guidelines.

It is submitted only an appropriate decisionmaking authority after prescribed procedure can take
decision for appointment and removal of Attorney
General of India , but in appointment or removal of
Attorney General of India pick and chose procedure
for their own convenience has been adopted which is
amounted as partisan or even illegal appointment.

It is submitted respondent-1 appointed the


respondent-2 as Attorney General of India in gross
violations of settled law as declared by the Supreme
Court in the case titled as
which is as
under
No reasons why norms and guidelines for selection of
candidates should not be framed and published so
that the entire process of selection is fair, reasonable
and transparent. It was further observed That
receiving applications from candidate recommended by
peoples who have no role to play in the process of
selection may in fact have the effect of rendering the
selection
process
suspect,
for
any
such
recommendations on as most likely to influence the
selection process in a subtle manner to the prejudice
of the candidate who are not resourceful enough to
secure such recommendations, no matter they are
otherwise equal, if not more , meritorious.

It is submitted there is contradiction and conflict


in appointment procedure adopted in two most
important constitutional post wherein the appointment

procedure of one is well established as per the


procedure established by the constitution of India and
well expended by pronouncement by various judgment
of this Honble Court, but appointment procedure in
the other at par constitutional post i.e to the post of
Attorney General of India is silent, unaccountable,
non transparent and is solely based upon pick and
chose policy , done behind the close door by the
political masters and appointment is done and charge
of the said post is taken by the person appointed
without taking oath of office and secrecy.
It

is

submitted

whether

it

is

legitimate

interpretation of law and procedure adopted by


respondent
arbitrary which
do
not make
the
person appointed as Attorney General and office of the
Attorney General accountable as there is no provision
in the Constitution for Attorney General of India that
before they enters upon their office take oath of office
and oath of secrecy as prescribed for other
Constitutional Post like Chief Information officer,
Central Vigilance Commissioner,
Auditor General of India etc

Comptroller

and

It is submitted whether it is legitimate in law and


in the interest of society at large that the person who is
first law officer of the country but who is not
accountable for want of office of oath and secrecy and
there is every possibilities that conflict of interest
might hurt public interest at large particularly in Govt
cases in Apex court.

It is submitted oath of office and secrecy caution


the constitutional authority for their legal duties and
consequences for non compliance and prevent conflict
of interest but it is very strange that there is no check
and balances to the constitutional post like Attorney
General of India.

That the qualifications required for appointment


both as a Supreme Court judge and the Attorney
General of India are the same but the procedure for
selection and appointment adopted is completely
different as the office of the Supreme Court judge is
fully Accountable, Transparent, with oath, under
public scrutiny and with a age bar, whereas the office
of the Attorney General of India are completely
unaccountable, non transparent, without oath,
without any age bar and is done by pick and choose
policy by political masters with vested interest.

It is submitted as Constitution of India is silent over


the selection and appointment procedure and taking of
oath to the post of Attorney General of India ,resulted
the post of Attorney General of India has
become political post rather constitutional post which
is full of arbitratness and full of political whims and
fancies against the public interest.

It is submitted relevant provision in case of


appointment of Attorney General are as under

76(1) The President shall appoint a person who is


qualified to be appointed a Judge of the Supreme
Court to the Attorney General of India.

76(2) It shall be the duty of the Attorney General of


India to give advice to the government of India upon
such legal matters and to perform such others
duties of a legal character, as may from time to time
be referred or assign to him by the President, and to
discharge the functions conferred on him by or
under this Constitution or any other law for the
tome being in force.

76(3) In the performance of his duties, The


Attorney General shall have right of audience in all
courts in the territory of India.

76(4) The Attorney General shall hold office


during the pleasure of the President . and shall
receive such remunerations as the President may
determine.

It is submitted it is not the question of


appointment of present Attorney General of India, if
we see the past, all the previous government did not
follow any procedure, rules for the appointment of
Attorney General of India and till date besides the
present AG, 13 Attorney General of India has been
appointed in violation of settled law without
following any procedure and of law which amount to
zero accountability and zero transparency and is
solely based upon pick and chose policy , done
behind the close door by the political masters and
appointment is done and charge of the said post is
taken by the person appointed without taking oath
of office and secrecy.

It is submitted Constitution of India is silent


on the issue of procedure to be adopted in selecting
and appointing Attorney General of India and ,
hence there is need of interpretation of law in
respect of procedure to be followed for appointment
and removal of Attorney General of India.
It is submitted the job of Attorney General of
India is very responsible job and cannot be treated
as casual job of contractual nature and there are
larger implication of because whatever the Attorney
General of India does in the apex court Govt.
cannot take its stand back/or revert back
if Attorney General of India does some thing out of
fear or favour there is every possibility of conflict of
interest in various cases where the Attorney General
of India has appeared on behalf of corporate sector.

It is submitted as Constitution of India silent is


on the issue of taking oath of office and secrecy of
the constitutional post of Attorney General of
India , hence there is need of interpretation of law
in respect of Transparency, Accountability in
public life & fair judicial action of office of Attorney
General of India and the legally accountable duty of
first law officer of Union of India , otherwise which is
dangerous for the health of democracy.
It is submitted even a nominated members of
parliament has to take oath before he says any thing
in the house but Attorney General of India have no
such accountability and he can speak in any of the
house
or
its
committees
without
any
accountabilities as there is no procedure of oath of
office and secrecy of Attorney General of India.
It is submitted for want of oath of office and
secrecy Attorney General of India is not accountable
for the secrets and sensitive matters comes in his
knowledge as Attorney General of India through
govt he may disclose the same out of fear or favour ,
hence it is required that Attorney General of
India should take oath of office and secrecy in the
larger public interest

It is submitted the taking oath is a constitutional


and statutory duty of a person appointed as
Constitutional Authority otherwise there may be a
drastic consequences against the public interest. It
is

submitted

as Attorney

General

of

India are

empowered to addresses both the houses of


parliament and for that purpose also duty bound to
take oath of office and secrecy.The content of the
oath was provided for in the Constitution, and
required Members to express faith in the
Constitution, the integrity of the nation and the law,
and to faithfully discharge his duties.
It

is

submitted the

respondents

are

under

obligatins to follow the procedure in true letter and


spirit as required for selection/appointment or
removal of persons holding Constitutional Post in
the

larger

public

interest

for

appointment

of Attorney General of India and it cannot be left to


the whims of respondents

It is submitted there is no Law on this point ever


decided by the apex court and aforesaid lacuna in
selecting and appointingAttorney General of India is
clearly violation of doctrines natural justice as well as
it violates the basic structure of the Constitution and
letter and spirit of law

It is submitted it is an interesting substantial


question of law/ case as to the interpretation of
Constitution, which has far reaching consequence,
has been raised and has a impact on the basis
structure of constitution of India as till date such
important question of law relating to fundamental
rights has not been decided and required to be
examined by a Constitution Bench in view of the

impact on the fundamental rights of public at large


and in view of conflict between the two
Constitutional Authority which discriminate under
article 14 of the Constitution of India.

It is submitted it is right fundamental right of the


citizen of India to have accountable first law officer
of the Country to protect the larger interest of public
at large without any conflicting interest and with
fair, transparent selection and appointment of first
law officer of Country.

Hence the present Public Interest Litigation Petition to


frame a set of rules, procedure and guidelines be
formulated at par of other constitutional post for the
post of Attorney General of India as Constitution of
India is silent over the selection and appointment
procedure to the post of Attorney General of India ,
resulted the post of Attorney General of India has
become political post rather constitutional post which
is full of arbitratness and full of political whims and
fancies against the public interest and without
following any procedure and of law which amount to
zero accountability and zero transparency and is solely
based upon pick and chose policy , done behind the
close door by the political masters and appointment is
done and charge of the said post is taken by the
person appointed without taking oath of office and
secrecy. Hence it is required to follow the established

procedure as prescribed in the case of Appointment of


Supreme Court Judges as prescribed in Article 124(2)
as qualification and criterion for appointment of
Attorney General of India is the same for appointment
as a judge for Honble Supreme Court of India.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA NEW DELHI


CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. OF

2014

In the matter of the Article 32 of the


Constitution of India

AND

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the matter


of Appointment of Attorney General of India under
Article 76 (1) of The Constitution of India

AND

For enforcing powers vested, interalia, in


Article 32, 141and 142 of the Constitution of India

IN THE MATTTER OF:


1

Mr. Vibhor Anand


Son of Sh. V.K.Anand
52/8, Old Rajinder
Nagar New Delhi-110060

Petitioner

VERSUS
1

Union of India
Through Ministry of Law and Justice,
4th Floor, A-Wing, Shastri Bhawan,
New Delhi 110001.

Mr Mukul Rohtagi
Attorney General of India,
59, Sunder Nagar,
New Delhi

Respondents

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATIONS PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32


AND OTHER RELATED ARTICLE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE DIRECTION OR
ORDERS

(A)
TO FRAME A SET OF RULES, PROCEDURE AND
GUIDELINES BE FORMULATED AT PAR OF OTHER
CONSTITUTIONAL POST FOR THE POST OF
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF INDIA AS CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA IS SILENT OVER THE SELECTION AND
APPOINTMENT PROCEDURE TO THE POST OF
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF INDIA , RESULTED THE
POST OF ATTORNEY GENERAL OF INDIA HAS
BECOME POLITICAL
POST
RATHER
CONSTITUTIONAL
POST WHICH
IS
FULL
OF
ARBITRATNESS AND FULL OF POLITICAL WHIMS AND
FANCIES
AGAINST
THE PUBLIC
INTEREST
AND WITHOUT FOLLOWING ANY PROCEDURE AND
OF LAW WHICH AMOUNT TO ZERO ACCOUNTABILITY
AND ZERO TRANSPARENCY AND IS SOLELY BASED
UPON PICK AND CHOSE POLICY , DONE BEHIND THE
CLOSE DOOR BY THE POLITICAL MASTERS AND
APPOINTMENT IS DONE AND CHARGE OF THE SAID
POST IS TAKEN BY THE PERSON APPOINTED
WITHOUT TAKING OATH OF OFFICE AND SECRECY.
HENCE
IT
IS
REQUIRED
TO
FOLLOW
THE ESTABLISHED PROCEDURE AS PRESCRIBED IN
THE CASE OF APPOINTMENT OF SUPREME COURT
JUDGES AS PRESCRIBED IN ARTICLE 124(2) AS
QUALIFICATION AND CRITERION FOR APPOINTMENT
OF ATTORNEY GENERAL OF INDIA IS THE
SAME FOR APPOINTMENT AS A JUDGE FOR
HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.

(B)
DECLARE
THE
APPOINTMENT
OF
RESPONDENT-4 AS NULL AND VOID BEING
VIOLATIVE OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AS NO
LEGAL
PROCEDURE
FOR
APPOINTMENT
AS

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF INDIA HAS BEEN ADOPTED


IN APPOINTING THE RESPONDENT-4

(C)
THE TERM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BE
FIXED SO THAT THE PERSON TO BE APPOINTED TO
THE RESPECTIVE POST CAN WORK WITHOUT
FEAR AND ANY COERCION

(D)
THE PROCEDURE BE FORMULATED FOR OATH
TAKING BEFORE TAKING CHARGE OF THE OFFICE
OF
THE
ATTORNEY
GENERAL AS
THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SILENT ON THIS ISSUE

(E)
ARTICLE 76 CLAUSE (2) BE DECLARED NULL
AND VOID AS IT VIOLATE THE BASIC STRUCTURE OF
CONSTITUTION AND IT ACTUALLY STILLS FEAR THE
MIND OF THE LAW OFFICER OF REMOVAL FROM
THE SERVICE IF THEY DONOT ACT OF THE WISHES
OF
THE
GOVERNMENT
BEING
POLITICALLY
APPOINTED

TO
THE HONBLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA
AND OTHER JUDGES OF THE SUPREME
COURT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI

THE
HUMBLE
PETITION
PETITIONER ABOVE NAMED

OF

THE

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:


1

That the petitioner is public spirited 25 year old law

student and by way of this petition wishes


seek complete Independence of judiciary which is
being

compromised

by

the

arbitrary

provision

to

and

procedures enacted and followed by the Govt. of India since


1950, which are violating the basic structure of the
Constitution of India and has the locus standi to file the
present petition in view of the Judgment passed by the
Honble Supreme Court of India commonly known as the
Judges Transfer Case - AIR 1982, SC 149.
It is submitted the petitioner has come with clean hands,
clean mind, heart and with clean objectives in the public
interest and is filing the present Public Litigation petition in
the public interest by challenging the procedure adopted by
the Govt. of India in appointment of the Attorney General of
India under Article 76 (1) of the Constitution of India by
way of present petition challenging the Non Transparent,
Non Accountable and Pick and Choose Procedure /Policy
adopted by the Central in appointment of the very important
Constitutional post of the Attorney General of India .

It is submitted the positions of Attorney General of India is


like a bridge between the Union of India and Supreme
Court.
It is submitted because the appointment of Attorney
General of India is done behind the close door without
following any procedure and of law which amount to zero
accountability and zero transparency and it proves that
appointment of Attorney General of India proves this is
purely a political appointment and full of arbitratness and
full of political whims and fancies at the cost of public
interest, The Respondent no. 1 have made the post of
Attorney General of India like a political post instead of
constitutional post

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 14 th Attorney General
of India and ultimately it proves true. It is submitted this
proves that it was pre decided and
Govt/respondent-1 without any established

the new
procedure

picked him for this Constitutional Post because of his close


association with the ruling party/respondent-1.
It

is

submitted only

an

appropriate

decision-making

authority after prescribed procedure can take decision for


appointment and removal of Attorney General of India , but
in appointment or removal of Attorney General of India pick
and chose procedure for their own convenience has been
adopted which is amounted as partisan or even illegal
appointment.

It is submitted there is contradiction and conflict in


appointment procedure adopted in two most important
constitutional post wherein the appointment procedure of
one is well established as per the procedure established by
the constitution of India and well expended by
pronouncement by various judgment of this Honble Court,
but appointment procedure in the other at par
constitutional post to the post of Attorney General of
India is silent, unaccountable, non transparent and is
solely based upon pick and chose policy , done behind the
close door by the political masters and appointment is done
and charge of the said post is taken by the person appointed
without taking oath of office and secrecy.
3

That conflicting nature of two different procedures

adopted for two equal constitutional post i.e. one is the


appointment procedure of Supreme Court Judges under
Article 124 clause 1-7 and the other one is the appointment
of Attorney
General
of
India,
which
is
silent,
unaccountable, non transparent and is solely based upon
pick and chose policy , done behind the close door by the
political masters procedure adopted for appointment of
Attorney General of India under Article 76 (1-3)
4

That 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.

5
That as per Article 76(1) of Constitution of India a
person who is qualified to be a judge of Supreme Court shall
be appointed as the Attorney General of India. It is
submitted relevant provisions are as under:124 (2) Every Judge of the Supreme Court shall be
appointed by the President by warrant under his hand
and seal after consultation with such of the judges of
the Supreme Court and of the High Courts in the
States as the President may deem necessary for the
purpose and shall hold office until he attains the age
of sixty five years.
124 (2A)

The age of judge of the Supreme Court shall

be determined by such authority and in such manner


as parliament may be law provide.
124

(3)

person

shall

not

be

qualified

for

appointment as a Judge of the Supreme Court unless


he is a citizen of India and-----

(a) Has been for at least five years a


Judges of a High Court or of two or more
such courts in succession or

(b)Has been for at least ten years an


advocate of a High Court or of two or more
such courts in succession or

(c) Is, in the opinion of the President, a


distinguished jurist.

76(1) The President shall appoint a person who is


qualified to be appointed a Judge of the Supreme
Court to the Attorney General of India.

76(2) It shall be the duty of the Attorney


General of India to give advice to the government of
India upon such legal matters and to perform such
others duties of a legal character, as may from time to
time be referred or assign to him by the President, and
to discharge the functions conferred on him by or
under this Constitution or any other law for the tome
being in force.

76(3) In the performance of his duties, The Attorney


General shall have right of audience in all courts in the
territory of India.

76(4) The Attorney General shall hold office during


the pleasure of the President . and shall receive such
remunerations as the President may determine.

It is submitted then the appointment of majority of the previous


13 Attorney General of India were in contradiction of article

124(2) as majority of them were appointed after they had attained


the age of 65 years. The details are as under:-

28.01.1950

Shri M.C. Setalvad appointed the

first Attorney General of India at the age of 65+


and remains in office for over 13 years.

02.03.1963

Shri C.K. Daphtary appointed the

second Attorney General of India at the age of


70+ and remains in office for over 5 years.

01.11.1968

Shri Niren De appointed the third

Attorney General of India at the age of 65+ and


remains in office for over 11 years.

01.04.1977

Shri S.V. Gupte appointed the

fourth Attorney General of India at the age of 65+


and remains in office for over 2 years.

09.08.1979

Shri L.N. Sinha appointed the fifth

Attorney General of India at the age of 65+ and


remains in office for over 4 years.

09.08.1983
Sh. K. Prasaran appointed the
sixth Attorney General of India at the age of 56+
and remains in office for over 6 years.

09.12.1989
Shri Soli J, Sorabjee appointed
the seventh Attorney General of India at the age
of 59+ and remains in office for 1 year.

03.12.1990 Shri G. Ramaswamy appointed the


eighth Attorney General of India at and remains
in office for 2 years.

24.11.1992
Shri Milon K Banerjee appointed
the ninth Attorney General of India at the age of
64+ and remains in office for over 3 years.

09.07.1996
Shri Ashok Desai appointed the
tenth Attorney General of India at the age of 66+
and remains in office for 2 years.

07.04.1998
Shri Soli J. Sorabjee appointed
the eleventh Attorney General of India at the age
of 68+ and remains in office for over 6 years.

05.06.2004
Shri Milon K Banerjee appointed
the third Attorney General of India at the age of
74+ and remains in office for 5 years.

08.06.2009
Shri G.E. Vahanvati appointed the
thirteenth Attorney General of India at the age of
60+ and remains in office for over 5 years.

6
That the qualifications required for appointment both
as a Supreme Court judge and the Attorney General of India
but the procedure for selection and appointment adopted is
completely different as the office of the Supreme Court
Judge is fully Accountable, Transparent, with oath, under
public scrutiny and with a age bar, whereas the office of the
Attorney General of India are completely unaccountable,
non transparent, without oath, without any age bar and is
done by pick and choose policy by political masters with
vested interest.

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).

That

as

the

procedural

part

of

selection

and

appointment of Attorney General of India under Article 76


are silent and the provisions of article 124(2)(4)5(6) and

(7) do not govern the appointment of Attorney General of


India making it completely unaccountable, which is not only
dangerous for democracy but also
structure of the Constitution of India.

violate

the

basic

It is submitted when any person cannot hold the office of a


Supreme Court judge after attaining the age of 65 years,
then how a person can be appointed as Attorney General of
India whose qualification is required to be equal to that of
the Supreme Court judge after attaining the age of 65
years?

9
That the procedure and practices adopted by the Govt.
Of India in the appointment of the AG violates the
fundamental rights of other constitutional posts including
the judges of the Supreme Court for appointment beyond
the age of 65 years.

10 That the present Central Government came into force


on 26th May 2014, and on 28th May 2014 it was widely
circulated in all national newspapers that Sh. Mukul
Rohatagi has consented to become the 14 th AG. This proves
that it was pre decided and the Govt. Without any
established procedure picked him for this post because of
his close association with the ruling party Because only an
appropriate decision-making authority after prescribed
procedure can take decision for appointment and removal of
Attorney General, but in appointment or

removal of Attorney General pick and chose procedure for


their own convenience has been adopted which is amounted
as partisan or even arbitrary

SOLE QUESTION OF LAW OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE


BEFORE YOUR LORDSHIPS BEING THE CUSTODIAN
AND GUARDIAN OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS

QUESTIONS OF LAW

(i)
Whether respondents should be allowed to adopt arbitrary
procedure in appointing Attorney General of India/ Advocate
General of respective States in the absence of prescribed
procedure in the Constitution of India and when constitution is
silent

(ii) Whether it is a legitimate interpretation of law and


procedure adopted by respondent arbitrary which do not make
the person appointed as Attorney General and office of the
Attorney General accountable as there is no provision in the
Constitution for Attorney General of India/Advocate General of
respective States that before they enters upon their office take
oath of office and oath of secrecy as prescribed for other
Constitutional Post like Chief Information officer, Central

Vigilance Commissioner, Comptroller and Auditor General of


India etc

(iii) Whether it is legitimate in law and in the interest of society


at large that the person who is first law officer of the country but
who is not accountable for want of office of oath and secrecy and
there is every possibilities that conflict of interest might hurt
public interest at large particularly in Govt cases in Apex court/
High Court for example.

It is submitted oath of office and secrecy caution the


constitutional authority for their legal duties and
consequences for non compliance and prevent conflict of
interest but it is very strange that there is no check and
balances to the constitutional post like Attorney General of
India and Advocate General of respective States.
(iv) Whether the Arbitrary procedure adopted by the Government
of India/Respondents since 1950 in the appointment of Attorney
General of India who had crossed the age of 65 years before such
appointment or during their tenure, under Article 76(1) which
requires fulfilment of conditions specified under article 124(3)
violates the fundamental rights of the Judges of the Supreme
Court to have a tenure beyond the age of 65 years?

(v) Whether the age bar set under Article 124(2) applies on the
appointment of Attorney General Of India made under Article
76(1), which has to be done in accordance with the conditions
specified under Article 124(3)?

(vi) That the procedure adopted by the govt. since 1950 in


appointment of the Attorney General Of India under Art.
76(1) by appointing persons above the age of 65 years is
completely arbitrary and violates the fundamental rights of
the citizens/ legal professionals/ sitting judges to have a
tenure beyond the age of 65 years.
(vii) That 10 out of 13 previous Attorney Generals of
India appointed had crossed the age of 65 years before
such appointment or during their tenure as the
Attorney General. These appointments violates article
14 of the constitution.
(viii) That Article 76(1) expressly states that The
President shall appoint a person who is qualified to be
appointed a judge of the Supreme Court to be Attorney
General for India.

GROUNDS OF INTERFERENCES

(A) Because as per Article 76 of Constitution of India The Post


of Attorney General of India and is a Constitutional Post and
Attorney General of India have to be appointed according to the
Constitution of India but Constitution of India is silent what
procedure are to be followed for appointment and removal of
Attorney General of India and respondent has adopted arbitrary
self made pick and choose procedure for appointment of such a
prominent constitutional post, which is contraryto settled law

(B)

Because Constitution of India is silent on the issue of

procedure to be adopted in selecting and appointing Attorney


General of India, hence there is need of interpretation of law in
respect of procedure to be followed for appointment and removal
of Attorney General of India.

(C)

Because the job of Attorney

General of India is very

responsible job and cannot be treated as casual job of


contractual nature and there are larger implication of
because whatever the Attorney General of India does in the apex
court cannot take its stand back/or revert back if Attorney
General of India does something out of fear or favour there is
every possibility of conflict of interest in various cases where
theAttorney General of India has appeared on behalf of corporate
sector.

(D) Because Constitution of India silent is on the issue of taking


oath of office and secrecy of the constitutional post of Attorney
General of India, hence there is need of interpretation of law in
respect of Transparency, Accountability in public life & fair
judicial action of office of Attorney General of India/ Advocate
General of respective States and the legally accountable duty of
first law officer of Union of India otherwise which is dangerous for
the health of democracy.

It is submitted even a nominated members of parliament has to


take oath before he says any thing in the house but Attorney

General of Indiahave no such accountability and he can speak in


any of the house or its committees without any accountabilities
as there is no procedure of oath of office and secrecy of Attorney
General of India.

It is submitted for want of oath of office and secrecy Attorney


General of India is not accountable for the secrets and
sensitive matters comes in his knowledge as Attorney General of
India through govt he may disclose the same out of fear or
favour , hence it is required that Attorney General of
India should take oath of office and secrecy in the larger public
interest.

It is submitted the taking oath is a constitutional and


statutory duty of a person appointed as Constitutional
Authority otherwise there may be a drastic consequences against
the public interest. It is submitted as Attorney General of
India are empowered to addresses both the houses of parliament
and for that purpose also duty bound to take oath of office and
secrecy. The content of the oath was provided for in the
Constitution, and required Members to express faith in the
Constitution, the integrity of the nation and the law, and to
faithfully discharge his duties.

(E) Because the Transparency, Accountability in public life &


fair judicial action are the right answer to check
increasing menace of violation of legal rights, hence judicial
interference/review is necessary to make the constitutional post
of Attorney General of India meaningful and to bring out from

the clutches of politician who have made the constitutional post


as political post with vested interest as decision are taken behind
the door without following procedure and against the interest of
natural justice resulted there is zero accountability and zero
transparency of the constitutional post of Attorney General of
India.

(F)

Because the respondents are under obligations to follow the

procedure in true letter and spirit


selection/appointment
or
removal
of

as required for
persons
holding

Constitutional Post in the larger public interest for appointment


of Attorney General of India it cannot be left to the whims of
respondents

(G) Because The respondents are under obligation to follow the


established procedure in true letter and spirit as required for
appointment or removal of persons holding Constitutional Post
and in the larger public interest before invoking the doctrine of
pleasure of President.

(H) Because there is no Law on this point ever decided by the


apex
court
and aforesaid
lacuna
in
selecting
and
appointing Attorney General of India is clearly violation of
doctrines natural justice as well as it violates the basic structure
of the Constitution and letter and spirit of law

(I) Because it is an interesting substantial question of law/


case as to the interpretation of Constitution, which has far

reaching consequence, has been raised and has a impact on


the basis structure of constitution of India as till date such
important question of law relating to fundamental rights has
not been decided and required to be examined by a
Constitution Bench in view of the impact on the
fundamental rights of public at large and in view of conflict
between
the
two
Constitutional
Authority
which
discriminate under article 14 of the Constitution of India.

(J)

Because it is right fundamental right of the citizen of

India to have accountable first law officer of the Country to


protect the larger interest of public at large without any
conflicting interest and with fair, transparent selection and
appointment of first law officer of Country.

(K)

Guidelines are required to be framed at least for limited

purpose/period/short period to prevent conflict between


Article 124 and Article 76.

(L)

Because

in

the

instant

Public

Interest

Petition

substantial question of law as to the interpretation of


constitution has been raised and determination is
necessary in the larger public interest.

(M) Because it is the duty of the court to see that the


administration of justice is not perverted, prejudiced,
obstructed or interfered with.

PRAYER

It is prayed to this Honble Court

(A)

To frame a set of rules, procedure and guidelines

be formulated at par of other constitutional post for


the post of Attorney General of India as Constitution of
India is silent over the selection and appointment
procedure to the post of Attorney General of India ,
resulted the post of Attorney General of India has
become political post rather constitutional post which
is full of arbitratness and full of political whims and
fancies against the public interest and without
following any procedure and of law which amount to
zero accountability and zero transparency and is solely
based upon pick and chose policy , done behind the
close door by the political masters and appointment is
done and charge of the said post is taken by the person
appointed without taking oath of office and secrecy.
Hence it is required to follow the established procedure
as prescribed in the case of Appointment of Supreme
Court Judges as prescribed in Article 124(2) as
qualification and criterion for appointment of Attorney
General of India is the same for appointment as a
judge for Honble Supreme Court of India.

(B)
Declare the Appointment of Respondent-2 as null
and void being violative of Constitution of India as no
legal procedure for appointment as Attorney General of
India has been adopted in appointing the respondent-2

(C)

The term for the Attorney General be fixed so

that the person to be appointed to the respective post


can work without fear and any coercion

(D)

The procedure be formulated for oath taking

before taking charge of the office of the Attorney


General as the Constitution of India silent on this
issue

(E)

Article 76 clause (2) be declared null and void as it violate the

basic structure of constitution and it actually stills fear the mind of the
law officer of removal from the service if they donot act of the wishes of
the government being politically appointed.

(F)

Direction be given to respondent no. 1-2 to furnish entire

information regarding procedure followed in selecting and appointing


respondent-2 and other ( previous ) 13 Attorney General of India as
Attorney General of India and on what basis recommendation were sent
to President of India for appointment of respondent-2 and other

( previous ) 13 as Attorney General of India and further direction be


given to produce following entire record in relation to appointment of
respondent-2 as Attorney General of India.

(G)

Recommendation which were sent by the respondent no.

1 Ministry of Law/ Govt. Of India to appointing authority i.e President


of India/ Presidents Secretariat recommending for appointment
of respondent-2 or any other person as Attorney General of India

(H)

Relevant rules and regulation and procedure adopted for

appointment of respondent-2 as Attorney General of India by


respondent-1.

(I)

When the process of appointment of Attorney General of India

was started and at whose instance after assuming the office by the
New Govt headed by Honble PM Narender Modi ,

(J)

When the selection committee was constituted and names

with designation of the members of the selection committee alongwith


details of each meetings including date ,timings , agenda and minutes of
the meetings held by such selection committee and names of the
persons who were considered by the Selection Committee for the post
of Attorney General of India and Final findings of the Selection
Committee in coming to the conclusion of selecting /appointing Mr
Mukul Rohtagi as Attorney General of India

(K)

When and by whom oath of office and Secrecy was

administrated to the Respondent-2 as Attorney General of India

(L)

Further Direction be given to respondents to advertise the

vacancy for the post of Attorney General of India atleast in at national


news paper and also published on the ministry website.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER IN PERSON


AS DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY

DRAWN & FILED BY:

MR. VIBHOR ANAND


Petitioner- in-Person
Drawn on: 09.09.2014
Filed on: 12.09.2014
Place: New Delhi
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA NEW DELHI
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. OF

IN THE MATTTER OF:

2014

Mr. Vibhor Anand

....Petitioner

VERSUS
Union of India & Anr.

...Respondents

CERTIFICATE
Certificate that the Public Interest Litigation Petition is confined
only to the pleadings before the court. It is further certified that
the copies of the annexures attached to this Special Leave
Petition are necessary to answer the question of law raised in the
petition or to make out grounds urged in the Public Interest
Litigation Petition or consideration of this Honble Court.

FILED BY

Filed on:12.09.2014

[VIBHOR ANAND]
PETITIONER IN PERSON

New Delhi

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA NEW DELHI


CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. OF

2014

IN THE MATTTER OF:


Mr. Vibhor Anand

....Petitioner

VERSUS
Union of India & Anr.

...Respondents

AFFIDAVIT
I, Vibhor Anand Law Student, having its office at 52/8, Old
Rajender Nagar, New Delhi 110 060 do hereby solemnly affirm
and state as under:1.

That

the

deponent

is

the

petitioner

hence

well

conversant with the facts of the case and competent to


swear this affidavit.
2.

That the contents of the accompanying PIL Para __to __

, pages
to
, list of dates and events page B to and
I.As are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and
same has been drafted by myself.

3. That the annexure filed along with the transfer petition


are true and correct translated copies of their respective
originals.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION
Verified on this

day of September, 2014 at New Delhi that the

contents of the above noted affidavit para 1 to 3 are true and


correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing
material
therefrom.

has

been

concealed

DEPONENT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA NEW DELHI


CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
I.A. NO

OF 2014
IN

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. OF

IN THE MATTTER OF:


Mr. Vibhor Anand

....Petitioner

2014

VERSUS
Union of India & Anr.

...Respondents

APPLICATION SEEKING PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND ARGUE


THE MATTER IN PERSON

TO,
THE HONBLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA
AND HIS COMPANION JUDGES OF THE
HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.

THE HUMBLE APPLCIATION OF THE


PETITIONER ABOVE NAMED

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1.
The petitioner has filed the accompanying Public Interest
Litigation for the establishment of fundamental rights of the
Petitioner in person, which are suspended due to a criminal
conspiracy fabricated by the Government of India.
2.
The Petitioner is fully conversant with the facts of the case
and fully capable in arguing the case.

PRAYER

It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Honble


Court may be pleased to:-

a)
grant permission to the Petitioner in person to appear and
argue the matter in person.

DRAWN & FILED BY:

MR. VIBHOR ANAND


Petitioner- in-Person
Drawn on: 09.09.2014
Filed on: 10.09.2014
Place: New Delhi

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA NEW DELHI


CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. OF

2014

IN THE MATTTER OF:


Mr. Vibhor Anand

....Petitioner

VERSUS
Union of India & Anr.

...Respondents

WITH
I.A. NO.

OF 2014

APPLICATION SEEKING PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND ARGUE


THE MATTER IN PERSON

PAPER BOOK
[KINDLY SEE INSIDE FOR INDEX]

PETITIONER IN PERSON:: MR.VIBHOR ANAND

INDEX

S. No.
1.

2.

3.

4.

PARTICULARS

Listing Proforma

A1-A2

Synopsis & List of Dates

B -

Public Interest Litigation Petition


with Affidavit.

1-

ANNEXURE-P-1:Copy of the New Paper Articles


dated 26.05.2014.

5.

Page Nos.

ANNEXURE-P-2:Copy of the New Paper Articles


dated 29.05.2014.

6.

I.A. NO.

OF 2014

Application seeking permission to


appear and argue the matter in
person