The Madras High Court today directed the state government to place before it a draft of the norms as per the observations made by the Supreme Court in appointment of law officers for courts in the state.
It also directed that future appointments of law officers be made as per proper norms according to the Supreme Court observations in connection with the same.
The First Bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice R Mahadevan, gave the direction while hearing a batch of PILs challenging the appointment of law officers in the state and Puducherry.
It granted three weeks time to the Advocate General to furnish details on appointments that were already made with regard to law officers in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry and eight weeks for furnishing details about norms for future appointments.
The bench then posted the matter for further hearing to November 20.
Several PILs were filed seeking a direction to various authorities including Union Home Ministry and Ministry of Law and Justice, Chief Secretary, Tamil Nadu government, and others to frame guidelines and appropriate rules for appointment of law officers for representing Tamil Nadu and Puducherry.
The petitioners had submitted the post of law officer was not a political post, but a public post with greater responsibility in the administration of justice.
They said unless appointment of law officers was made fairly based on merit, ability and integrity, the justice delivery system would be in peril and sought a direction to the Tamil Nadu and Puducherry governments to frame guidelines in this regard.
"The rationale for the direction by the Supreme Court is to ensure competent lawyers to represent them so that the government interest is properly protected in the courts... There cannot be appointments made in an arbitrary fashion without any transparent method," the bench said.
The bench said, "We are thus concerned with the matter in
two different phases. One is to see that for future appointments, there are proper norms for appointment of law officers as per the observations of the Supreme Court and a draft of the same should be prepared by the state government and placed before the Court.
"The second area of concern is whether any process whatsoever was followed for making the appointments recently, as in some of the petitions filed before the appointments were made, specific orders were passed that the appointments would be subject to the final outcome of the petitions."
The court observed, "The state government must, thus show as to what procedure, if any , was followed for making these appointments as also in other governments instrumentalities and produce the records in respect thereof indicating the process and the consultations made in this behalf.
