The Advocate General is a very high Constitutional authority appointed under Article 165 of our Constitution. The Governor of each State appoints a person who is qualified to be a High Court Judge as the Advocate General. The Office of the Advocate General is a very exalted one. As the supreme law officer of the State he is expected to be extremely honest, sincere and competent in giving invaluable fair legal guidance to the State Government in formulation of its policy and execution of its decisions. An Advocate General should never be someone who has a lust or greed for wealth or having vested interest with any lobby but has always to ensure the State’s best interests at heart. Though he is appointed by the State, he is bound to be fair in giving advice to the State as also in his submissions to the Court. It is for this reason that unlike a statement made by a Government advocate to a Court which does not bind the Government, a statement made by the Advocate General in a Court, binds the Government. Advocate General is the Leader of the Bar and is required to defend the State while always securing its interests at all times. As a role model to the legal fraternity he has to uphold impeccable integrity and the highest ethical standards. An Advocate General of a State apart from being a constitutional functionary is also a public official and acts of public officials in discharge of their official duties is open to public scrutiny against any illegal acts. In 1975 Justice Krishna Iyer heading a 7-Bench of the Supreme Court had held “The Bar is not a private guild, like that of barbers, butchers and candlestick-makers but, by bold contrast, a public institution committed to public justice and pro bono publico service. The central function that the legal profession must perform is nothing less than the administration of justice. The official heads of the Bar i.e., the Attorney General and the Advocate-Generals too are distressed if a lawyer stoops to conquer by resort to soliciting, touting and other corrupt practices” In 2005 Lord Bingham of Cornhill of the Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago in a judgment had observed “It may be that the jury would incline to regard a practising lawyer as a man of probity whose word was prima facie worthy of belief. But the belief of lawyers in their own probity is not universally shared, and there are those who believe them to be capable of almost any chicanery or sharp practice.” Professional ethics demands that a person occupying the high and solemn constitutional post as Advocate General should never appear for a private party in a case where the government is directly or even indirectly a party. Once appointed as Advocate General, it is incumbent upon him to realize that his penchant for bolstering his private practice and thus raking in the moolah, cannot be achieved by any unholy means. An Advocate General is engaged and given a Constitutional position, to give appropriate advice to the Government, uninfluenced by political considerations. He being an important functionary in the legal system and in the dispensation of justice, his conduct at all times must be beyond any shadow of doubt. The Supreme Court in a very recent judgment while pulling up the Government Advocate who misled the Rajasthan High Court has observed “. As far as the counsel for the State is concerned, it can be decidedly stated that he has a higher responsibility. A counsel who represents the State is required to state the facts in a correct and honest manner. He has to discharge his duty with immense responsibility and each of his action has to be sensible. He is expected to have higher standard of conduct. He has a special duty towards the court in rendering assistance. It is because he has access to the public records and is also obliged to protect the public interest. That apart, he has a moral responsibility to the court. When these values corrode, one can say “things fall apart”. He should always remind himself that an advocate, while not being insensible to ambition and achievement, should feel the sense of ethicality and nobility of the legal profession in his bones. We hope, hopefully, there would be apposite response towards duty; the hollowed and honoured duty” Several Advocate Generals in the country have been accused of wrong doings but alongside those controversial ones we have had some outstanding ones too. J M Thakore, Gujarats Advocate General since 1960 was India’s longest serving Advocate General. He worked under 27 state governments and 13 chief ministers, intersperse with five spells of Presidents rule. He had the unique and remarkable distinction of holding the post as Advocate General of Gujarat from the day the state was formed till his death, a period of over forty years. His fierce independence, dedication to the profession and unimpeachable conduct ensured that successive governments of widely differing political ideologies continued to have him as the Advocate General. The late H.M. Seervai, India’s outstanding lawyer, jurist and scholar in constitutional law was Advocate General of Maharashtra for 17 long years with great distinction. He achieved an exceptional stature by his inflexible integrity, strong courage and conviction. As Advocate General of Maharashtra from 1957 to 1974, Seervai maintained the high stature as he was not a political appointee and did not consider himself one. Governments came and went but Seervai was not called upon to resign. His total disconnection from politicians and politics was his greatest strength. He dedicatedly defended Government in Court but declined to defend government policies which he felt were against his convictions. Seervai was quite unconcerned of financial rewards in the profession and had contempt for Advocates who prided themselves in having a lucrative practice. Lucrative, according to him meant greed for gain. Once asked if it would not be wrong to take high fees if clients were willing to pay them, Seervai retorted, “If a man was willing to be robbed would you be a thief?” A Retired Judge of Madras High Court N. V. Balasubramaniam had candidly stated ‘It is easier to become a judge of a high court than an Advocate-General as it is difficult to get that post unless one is a qualified and a very meritorious person,’ There is nothing wrong if the Advocate General is flamboyant and better still if he has an abiding interest in spirituality but he should never be a Merchant of Venice.
Posted on: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 06:37:53 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015