Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
26,5,2014 Print
by Honble
and
Prime
Electronics
Minister
Sh.
media widely
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
the
to
this
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.
is
submitted
whether
it
is
legitimate
Comptroller
and
submitted
as Attorney
General
of
India are
is
submitted the
respondents
are
under
larger
public
interest
for
appointment
2014
AND
AND
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
(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
(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
compromised
by
the
arbitrary
provision
to
and
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
is
submitted only
an
appropriate
decision-making
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)
(3)
person
shall
not
be
qualified
for
28.01.1950
02.03.1963
01.11.1968
01.04.1977
09.08.1979
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.
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
as
the
procedural
part
of
selection
and
violate
the
basic
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.
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
(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)?
GROUNDS OF INTERFERENCES
(B)
(C)
(F)
as required for
persons
holding
(J)
(K)
(L)
Because
in
the
instant
Public
Interest
Petition
PRAYER
(A)
(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)
(D)
(E)
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)
(G)
(H)
(I)
was started and at whose instance after assuming the office by the
New Govt headed by Honble PM Narender Modi ,
(J)
(K)
(L)
2014
....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
2014
....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
, 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.
has
been
concealed
DEPONENT
OF 2014
IN
....Petitioner
2014
VERSUS
Union of India & Anr.
...Respondents
TO,
THE HONBLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA
AND HIS COMPANION JUDGES OF THE
HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.
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
a)
grant permission to the Petitioner in person to appear and
argue the matter in person.
2014
....Petitioner
VERSUS
Union of India & Anr.
...Respondents
WITH
I.A. NO.
OF 2014
PAPER BOOK
[KINDLY SEE INSIDE FOR INDEX]
INDEX
S. No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
PARTICULARS
Listing Proforma
A1-A2
B -
1-
5.
Page Nos.
6.
I.A. NO.
OF 2014