Sambhav-2025

Approach Briefly introduce the constitutional provisions of the Attorney General of India (AGI) and Advocate General of a State. Mention the constitutional position of AGI and Advocate General (Articles 76 and 165). Discuss the lack of tenure security and independence—analyze legal, administrative, and functional limitations. Highlight implications on their functioning, with examples of challenges faced. Conclude suitably.

Introduction

The Attorney General of India (AGI) and the Advocate General of a State are the chief legal advisors to the Central and State governments, respectively. While they are appointed under Article 76 (AGI) and Article 165 (Advocate General) of the Constitution, they lack tenure security and functional independence, raising concerns about the impartiality of legal advice provided to the government.

Body

Constitutional Position of AGI and Advocate General:

• The AGI is appointed by the President and must be qualified to be a Supreme Court judge.
• The Advocate General is appointed by the Governor and must be qualified to be a High Court judge.
• Their primary duties include advising the government, representing it in legal matters, and appearing before courts in cases of national and state importance.

Lack of Tenure Security and Independence:

• No fixed tenure: Both AGI and Advocate General serve at the pleasure of the President and Governor, respectively, allowing arbitrary removals.
• No security of office: Unlike constitutional authorities such as CAG or Supreme Court judges, AGI and Advocate General can be removed at will without formal procedures.
• Risk of political influence: Since their appointment and continuation depend on the executive, there is a possibility of biased legal opinions favoring the government.
• Limited autonomy in decision-making: They do not have independent prosecutorial authority and are bound to act on government directives, restricting their ability to challenge unconstitutional actions.
• Conflict of interest: AGI and Advocate General are allowed private practice, which may lead to ethical conflicts and favoritism in legal matters.

Implications on Their Functioning:

• Reduced impartiality in legal advice: For example, during controversial cases like the Electoral Bonds case, questions were raised on the AGI’s neutrality.
• Government retains excessive control: The AGI may avoid criticizing government policies, affecting the credibility of legal arguments in court.
• Weakened role in defending constitutional values: In several instances, Advocate Generals have justified state actions even when constitutionally questionable (e.g., Sedition cases in some states).
• Undermines public trust: When legal advisors lack independence, it affects transparency, fairness, and credibility in governance.

Conclusion

The absence of tenure security and independence weakens the AGI and Advocate General’s ability to provide unbiased legal counsel. To ensure greater autonomy, reforms such as fixed tenure, transparent appointment processes, and restrictions on private practice should be considered. Strengthening their independence would enhance constitutional integrity and the rule of law in India.