LIST OF EVENTS/SYNOPSIS26.5.2014The presentCentre Government
came into powerheaded byHonble Prime Minister Sh. Narender
Modi26,5,2014Print and Electronics mediawidely circulated in all
national News Papers. One of the news paper namelyHinduprinted the
news as under Rohtagi may be the next Attorney General28.5.2014The
Respondent no.2 gave extensiveinterview in the print and
electronics media and said news items were widely circulated in all
national News Papers. One of the news paper namelyHinduprinted 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.14.6.2014Respondent-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-1It is relevant to mention here that aforesaid
sequence only point out that respondent - 4 was appointed as
Attorney General of India without following any procedureand of
lawand 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 submittedthe Transparency,
Accountabilityin public life & fair judicial action are the
right answer to check increasingmenace of violation of legal
rights, hence judicial interference/reviewis 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 the constitutional post of
Attorney General of India.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 to this important public office/constitutional post.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 submittedonly 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
Indiapick 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 Indiain gross violations of settled law as
declaredbythe Supreme Court in the case titled aswhichis 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 Indiais 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 a legitimate interpretation of law and
procedure adopted by respondent arbitrarywhich do notmake the
personappointed as Attorney General and office of the Attorney
General accountable as there is no provision in the Constitutionfor
Attorney General of Indiathat before they enters upon their
officetake oath of office and oath of secrecyas prescribed for
other Constitutional Post like Chief Information officer, Central
Vigilance Commissioner, Comptroller and Auditor General of India
etcIt is submitted whetherit 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 ofinterest might hurt public interest at large
particularly in Govt cases inApex 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 Indiaare 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 oathto the post of Attorney General of
India ,resulted the post of Attorney General of India has
becomepolitical post rather constitutional postwhich is full of
arbitratness and full of political whims and fancies against
thepublic interest.It is submittedrelevant provision in case of
appointment of Attorney General are as under76(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 andtill date besides the present AG, 13 Attorney
General of India has been appointedin violation of settled
lawwithout following any procedureand of law which amount to zero
accountability and zero transparencyand 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 submittedConstitution 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
ofAttorney General of India.It is submittedthe job ofAttorney
General of Indiais very responsible job and cannot be treated as
casual job of contractual nature and there are larger implication
of becausewhatever theAttorney General of Indiadoes in the apex
court Govt. cannot take its stand back/or revert back ifAttorney
General of Indiadoes some thing out of fear or favour there is
every possibility of conflict of interest in various cases where
theAttorney General of Indiahas 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 ofTransparency, Accountabilityin
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
butAttorney 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 procedureof oath of office and
secrecy ofAttorney General of India.It is submitted for want of
oath of office and secrecyAttorney General of Indiais not
accountable for the secrets and sensitivematterscomes in his
knowledge asAttorney General of Indiathrough govt he may disclose
the same out of fear or favour , hence itis required thatAttorney
General of Indiashould take oath of office and secrecy in the
larger public interestIt is submitted the taking oath is a
constitutional and statutoryduty ofa person appointed as
Constitutional Authority otherwise there may be a drastic
consequences against the public interest. It is submitted
asAttorney General of Indiaare empowered to addresses both the
houses of parliamentand 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 submittedthe respondents are
under obligatins to follow the procedure in true letter and spirit
as required for selection/appointment or removal of persons holding
Constitutional Postin the larger public interest for appointment
ofAttorney General of India and it cannot be left to the whims of
respondentsIt is submitted there is no Law on this point ever
decided by the apex court andaforesaid lacuna in selecting and
appointingAttorney General of Indiais clearly violation of
doctrines natural justice as well as it violates the basic
structure of the Constitution and letter and spirit of lawIt is
submittedit 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 Indiaas till date such important
question of law relating to fundamental rights has not been decided
and required to be examinedby 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 accountablefirst 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 ofCountry.Hence the present Public Interest Litigation
Petitionto frame a set of rules, procedure and guidelines be
formulatedat 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 becomepolitical post rather constitutional postwhich is full of
arbitratness and full of political whims and fancies against
thepublic interest andwithout following anyprocedureand of law
which amount to zero accountability and zero transparencyand 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
theestablished procedure as prescribed in the case of Appointment
of Supreme Court Judges as prescribed in Article 124(2) as
qualification and criterionfor appointment of Attorney General of
India is the samefor appointment as a judge for Honble Supreme
Court of India.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA NEW DELHICIVIL ORIGINAL
JURISDICTIONPUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. OF2014In the matter of
the Article 32 of the Constitution of IndiaANDPublic Interest
Litigation (PIL) in the matter of Appointment of Attorney General
of India under Article 76 (1) of The Constitution of IndiaANDFor
enforcing powers vested, interalia, in Article 32, 141and 142 of
the Constitution of IndiaIN THE MATTTER OF:1Mr. Vibhor AnandSon of
Sh. V.K.Anand52/8, Old RajinderNagar New
Delhi-110060PetitionerVERSUS1Union of IndiaThroughMinistry of Law
and Justice,4th Floor, A-Wing, Shastri Bhawan,New Delhi110001.2Mr
Mukul RohtagiAttorney General of India,59, Sunder Nagar,New
DelhiRespondentsPUBLIC 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 FORMULATEDAT 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 BECOMEPOLITICAL POST RATHER
CONSTITUTIONAL POSTWHICH IS FULL OF ARBITRATNESS AND FULL OF
POLITICAL WHIMS AND FANCIES AGAINST THEPUBLIC INTEREST ANDWITHOUT
FOLLOWING ANYPROCEDUREAND OF LAW WHICH AMOUNT TO ZERO
ACCOUNTABILITY AND ZERO TRANSPARENCYAND 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 THEESTABLISHED PROCEDURE AS
PRESCRIBED IN THE CASE OF APPOINTMENT OF SUPREME COURT JUDGES AS
PRESCRIBED IN ARTICLE 124(2) AS QUALIFICATION AND CRITERIONFOR
APPOINTMENT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL OF INDIA IS THE SAMEFOR 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 GENERALBE FIXEDSO THAT THE
PERSON TO BE APPOINTED TO THE RESPECTIVE POST CAN WORK WITHOUT
FEARAND ANY COERCION(D)THE PROCEDURE BE FORMULATED FOR OATH TAKING
BEFORE TAKING CHARGE OF THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERALAS THE
CONSTITUTION OFINDIA 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 APPOINTEDTOTHE HONBLE CHIEF
JUSTICE OF INDIAAND OTHER JUDGES OF THE SUPREMECOURT OF INDIA, NEW
DELHITHE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE PETITIONER ABOVE NAMEDMOST
RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:1That thepetitioneris public spirited25 year
old law student and by way of this petition wishes to
seekcompleteIndependenceof judiciary which is
being compromised by the arbitrary provision 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 standito file the present petitionin view of the Judgment
passed by the Honble Supreme Court of India commonly known asthe
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 interestand is filing the present
Public Litigation petition in the public interest by challenging
the procedure adopted by the Govt. of Indiain appointment of the
Attorney General of India under Article 76 (1)of the Constitution
of India by way of present petition challenging theNon 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 Indiais done behind the close
door without following anyprocedureand of law which amount to zero
accountability and zero transparencyand it proves that appointment
ofAttorney General of Indiaproves 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 Indialike a political
post instead of constitutional post2That the present Union
Govt./Respondents 1 came into power on 26thMay 2014, and on 28thMay
2014 it was widely circulated in all National Newspapers that Sh.
Mukul Rohtagi has consented to become the 14thAttorney 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.It is submittedonly 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 Indiapick 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 Indiais 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.3That
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 ofAttorney 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)4ThatArticle 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.5That
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)A 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:-28.01.1950Shri M.C. Setalvad
appointed the first Attorney General of India at the age of 65+ and
remains in office for over 13 years.02.03.1963Shri C.K. Daphtary
appointed the second Attorney General of India at the age of 70+
and remains in office for over 5years.01.11.1968Shri Niren De
appointed the third Attorney General of India at the age of 65+ and
remains in office for over 11 years.01.04.1977Shri S.V. Gupte
appointed the fourth Attorney General of India at the age of 65+
and remains in office for over 2 years.09.08.1979Shri L.N. Sinha
appointed the fifth Attorney General of India at the age of 65+ and
remains in office for over 4 years.09.08.1983Sh. K. Prasaran
appointed the sixth Attorney General of India at the age of 56+ and
remains in office for over 6 years.09.12.1989Shri Soli J, Sorabjee
appointed the seventh Attorney General of India at the age of 59+
and remains in office for 1 year.03.12.1990Shri G. Ramaswamy
appointed the eighthAttorney General of India at and remains in
office for2 years.24.11.1992Shri Milon K Banerjee appointed the
ninth Attorney General of India at the age of 64+ and remains in
office for over 3 years.09.07.1996Shri Ashok Desai appointed the
tenth Attorney General of India at the age of 66+ and remains in
office for 2years.07.04.1998Shri Soli J. Sorabjee appointed the
eleventh Attorney General of India at the age of 68+ and remains in
office for over 6 years.05.06.2004Shri Milon K Banerjee appointed
the third Attorney General of India at the age of 74+ and remains
in office for 5 years.08.06.2009Shri G.E. Vahanvati appointed the
thirteenth Attorney General of India at the age of 60+ and remains
in office for over 5 years.6That 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.7That 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).8That 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 violate the basic structure of the Constitution
of India.It is submitted when any person cannot hold the office of
a SupremeCourt judge after attaining the age of 65 years, then howa
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?9That 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.10That the present Central Government came into
force on 26thMay 2014, and on 28thMay 2014 it was widely circulated
in all national newspapers that Sh. Mukul Rohatagi has consented to
become the 14thAG. 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 partyBecause 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 arbitrarySOLE QUESTION OF LAW OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE BEFORE YOUR
LORDSHIPS BEING THE CUSTODIAN ANDGUARDIAN OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
ISQUESTIONS OF LAW(i)Whether respondents should be allowed to adopt
arbitrary procedure in appointing AttorneyGeneral 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 arbitrarywhich do notmake the
personappointed as Attorney General and office of the Attorney
General accountable as there is no provision in the Constitutionfor
Attorney General of India/Advocate General of respective States
that before they enters upon their officetake oath of office and
oath of secrecyas 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 ofinterest might hurt public
interest at large particularly in Govt cases inApex 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/Respondentssince 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.G R O U
N D SO FI N T E R F E R E N C E S(A)Because as per Article 76 of
Constitution of India The Post ofAttorney Generalof 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
ofAttorney General of India.(C)Because the job ofAttorney General
of Indiais very responsible job and cannot be treated as casual job
of contractual nature and there are larger implication of
becausewhatever theAttorney General of Indiadoes in the apex court
cannot take its stand back/or revert back ifAttorney General of
Indiadoes something out of fear or favour there is every
possibility of conflict of interest in various cases where
theAttorney General of Indiahas 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 ofTransparency, Accountabilityin 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 butAttorney 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 ofAttorney General of India.It is
submitted for want of oath of office and secrecyAttorney General of
Indiais not accountable for the secrets and sensitivematterscomes
in his knowledge asAttorney General of Indiathrough govt he may
disclose the same out of fear or favour, hence itis required
thatAttorney General of Indiashould take oath of office and secrecy
in the larger public interest.It is submitted the taking oath is a
constitutional and statutoryduty ofa person appointed as
Constitutional Authority otherwise there may be a drastic
consequences against the public interest. It is submitted
asAttorney General of Indiaare 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,
Accountabilityin public life & fair judicial action are the
right answer to check increasingmenace of violation of legal
rights, hence judicial interference/reviewis necessary to make the
constitutional post of Attorney General of Indiameaningful 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 as
required for selection/appointment or removal of persons holding
Constitutional Postin the larger public interest for appointment
ofAttorney 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 interestbefore
invoking the doctrine of pleasure of President.(H)Because there is
no Law on this point ever decided by the apex court andaforesaid
lacuna in selecting and appointingAttorney General of Indiais
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 Indiaas till date such important
question of law relating to fundamental rights has not been decided
and required to be examinedby 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 ofCountry.(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 necessaryin 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.P R A Y E RIt is prayed to this Honble
Court(A)To frame a set of rules, procedure and guidelines be
formulatedat 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 becomepolitical post rather constitutional postwhich is full of
arbitratness and full of political whims and fancies against
thepublic interest andwithout following anyprocedureand of law
which amount to zero accountability and zero transparencyand 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
theestablished procedure as prescribed in the case of Appointment
of Supreme Court Judges as prescribed in Article 124(2) as
qualification and criterionfor appointment of Attorney General of
India is the samefor 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
Generalbe fixedso that the person to be appointed to the respective
post can work without fearand any coercion(D)The procedure be
formulated for oath taking before taking charge of the office of
the Attorney Generalas the Constitution ofIndia 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 Indiaas Attorney General of India and on what basis
recommendation were sent to President of India for appointment
ofrespondent-2 and other ( previous ) 13 as Attorney General of
India and further direction be given toproduce followingentire
record in relation to appointment of respondent-2 as Attorney
General of India.(G)Recommendation which were sent by the
respondent no. 1Ministry of Law/ Govt. Of India toappointing
authority i.e President of India/ Presidents Secretariat
recommending for appointment ofrespondent-2 or any other person as
Attorney General of India(H)Relevant rules and regulation and
procedureadopted for appointment of respondent-2 as Attorney
General of Indiaby respondent-1.(I)When the process of appointment
of Attorney General of India was started and at whoseinstanceafter
assuming the office by the New Govt headed by Honble PM Narender
Modi ,(J)When the selection committee was constituted and names
withdesignation of the members of the selectioncommitteealongwith
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 andFinal findings of the
Selection Committee in coming to the conclusion of selecting
/appointingMr Mukul Rohtagi as Attorney General of India(K)When and
by whom oath of office and Secrecy was administrated to
theRespondent-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 PRAYDRAWN&
FILED BY:MR. VIBHOR ANANDPetitioner- in-PersonDrawn on:
09.09.2014Filed on: 12.09.2014Place: New DelhiIN THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA NEW DELHICIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTIONPUBLIC INTEREST
LITIGATION NO. OF2014IN THE MATTTER OF:Mr. Vibhor
Anand....PetitionerVERSUSUnionof India &
Anr....RespondentsCERTIFICATECertificate 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 BYFiled on:12.09.2014[VIBHOR ANAND]PETITIONER IN
PERSONNew Delhi
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA NEW DELHICIVIL ORIGINAL
JURISDICTIONPUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. OF2014IN THE MATTTER
OF:Mr. Vibhor Anand....PetitionerVERSUSUnionof India &
Anr....RespondentsAFFIDAVITI, 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 __ , pagesto, list of dates and events
page B toand 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.DEPONENTVERIFICATIONVerified on
thisday 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 has been concealed
therefrom.DEPONENT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA NEW DELHICIVIL ORIGINAL
JURISDICTIONI.A. NOOF 2014INPUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. OF2014IN
THE MATTTER OF:Mr. Vibhor Anand....PetitionerVERSUSUnionof India
& Anr....RespondentsAPPLICATION SEEKING PERMISSION TO APPEAR
AND ARGUE THE MATTER IN PERSONTO,THE HONBLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF
INDIAAND HIS COMPANION JUDGES OF THEHONBLE SUPREME COURT OF
INDIA.THE HUMBLE APPLCIATION OF THE PETITIONER ABOVE NAMEDMOST
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.PRAYERIt 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
ANANDPetitioner- in-PersonDrawn on: 09.09.2014Filed on:
10.09.2014Place: New Delhi
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA NEW DELHICIVIL ORIGINAL
JURISDICTIONPUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. OF2014IN THE MATTTER
OF:Mr. Vibhor Anand....PetitionerVERSUSUnionof India &
Anr....RespondentsWITHI.A.NO.OF 2014APPLICATION SEEKING PERMISSION
TO APPEAR AND ARGUE THE MATTER IN PERSONPAPER BOOK[KINDLY SEE
INSIDE FOR INDEX]PETITIONER IN PERSON:: MR.VIBHOR ANANDINDEXS.
No.PARTICULARSPage Nos.
1.Listing ProformaA1-A2
2.Synopsis & List of DatesB-
3.Public Interest Litigation Petition with Affidavit.1 -
4.ANNEXURE-P-1:-Copy of the New Paper Articles dated
26.05.2014.
5.ANNEXURE-P-2:-Copy of the New Paper Articles dated
29.05.2014.
6.I.A.NO.OF 2014Application seeking permission to appear and
argue the matter in person