Madras HC: 2019 Amendment To Law Officer Appointment Rules Valid

Rule under Challenge

• The Madras High Court Bench of Hon’ble Justices T. S. Sivagnanam and S. Ananthi was hearing a petition challenging the validity of amendment made in 2019 to the Law Officers of Madras High Court and its Bench at Madurai (Appointment) Rule, 2017 which deal with the appointment of government lawyers.
• The amended rule states that no person will be appointed as a government lawyer in the Madras High Court unless he/she furnishes a letter given by his senior stating that he/she has assisted him and worked in the HC for not less than 3 years.
• The amendment in question denies equal opportunity to meritorious candidates to be considered eligible as law officers for representing the state as in the High Court and its Bench at Madurai.
• It was also argued there will be consequences if inexperienced advocates are appointed as law officers and it will affect the administration of justice.

Court’s Observations

• While hearing the petition the court remarked that the petition did not challenge any appointment orders issued to the Government law officers and challenged the amendment to the rules.
• While referring to the judgment in V. Vasantha kumar vs. Chief Secretary, Govt. of Tamil Nadu, the Court held that the selection of Government Advocates is the arena of the Government and/or its instrumentalities and the judicial review of such appointments will only be limited to examining whether the process of appointment has any illegality, irregularity, perversity, or irrationality.
• The Court also held that it didn’t find any irrationality, illegality, or arbitrariness, or any discrimination in the impugned rule for it to be struck down.
• The Court also opined that it takes more than 3 years for a young member of the bar to be included in the list of the advocates in the vakalat filed by the senior.
• The Court noted that the appointment process has yet to begun and held that it is too early for the petitioner to assume certain things and the actions which may occur in the future would not be sustainable.
• Before concluding the matter, the Court held that due care should be taken by the Respondents while conducting the selection process and appointing counsels for State.
• The State Government was also directed to give wide publicity to the selection process of law officers by publishing a notice in the papers, sending messages, and in turn, the respective bar associations can inform their members about the upcoming selection.

What do you think of this matter?