MOHAMMED SHIYAS Vs. JOHN KENNEDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner in this Interlocutory Application seeks impleadment in this Writ Appeal. He says that he, a law graduate, is the General Secretary of the Youth Congress in the State of Kerala and is a social and human rights activist and has brought many social issues to the notice of public authorities and has always taken efforts to have genuine grievances redressed in relation to many public issues. He describes in para. 2 of the affidavit accompanying this application, the efforts taken by him and his organisation in trying to seek redressal of what he calls as exploitation of the poor masses of the State of Kerala by the evil consequences of lottery businessmen.

(2.) Sr. Adv. Sri. P.S. Raman had appeared and argued for the writ Appellant on one posting date. This impleading petition is filed essentially voicing concern about the appearance of Sr. Adv. Sri P.S. Raman on behalf of the Appellant. The plea is that Sri P.S. Raman, being in office as the Advocate General of the State of Tamil Nadu, is disabled by law from appearing for the Appellant in this case. The impleading Petitioner points out firstly, that as the Advocate General of the State of Tamil Nadu, Sri. P.S. Raman, could not have appeared in any litigation, in which, legislative provisions of enactments of the State of Kerala are either under challenge or would fall for consideration for interpretation vis-a-vis, the interest of the State of Kerala, even if it were in the High Court of Kerala. The next stand taken is that in terms of Article 165 of the Constitution and particular regard being had to Article 165(3), the Advocate General holds a public office of substantive character, though it may not be a civil post and therefore, having regard to the depth and sweep of the authority of the Advocate General in terms of Article 165, it is constitutionally inappropriate and impermissible for the Advocate General to appear for a private party, at any rate, against the interest of another State. Reference is made to the judgment of the Apex Court in M.T. Khan and Ors. v. Govt. of A.P. and Ors., 2004 2 SCC 267to dilate on the constitutional authority, the setting, status and position of the Advocate General in terms of the Constitution. The impleading Petitioner further states that one Mr. Santiago Martin is a well established lottery businessman and an organisation by name Megha Distributors is controlled and benefited by him and that the said Megha Distributors is the organisation of the Appellant. He also says that certain criminal cases in relation to lottery business are pending adjudication in the State of Tamil Nadu and hence, Sri P.S. Raman, being the Advocate General of the State of Tamil Nadu and its principal law officer, is disabled from appearing either for Mr. Santiago Martin or his agent. It is contended that it is part of the constitutional responsibility expected of the Advocate General to excuse himself from appearing for such persons in any court.

(3.) The impleading Petitioner refers to the Constituent Assembly Debates to support the argument that the Constitution, particularly Article 165, in its essence, prohibits the Advocate General from taking up any private practice and that such obligation should be treated as salutary, having regard to different aspects. He points out that if the Advocate General is permitted to appear for private persons, that would lead to disastrous consequences and would pose serious threat to the judicial sanctity and would result in undermining the faith of the people in the judicial system. He further says that quite often, the Governments seek legal opinion and advice of the respective Advocate General for achievement of policy issues and if private practice is permitted for the Advocate General, there is room for serious apprehension that the very object of such legislation would he often defeated even before its outcome and this would amount to even violation of the oath that the Advocate General is, according to the impleading Petitioner, to take as per the Schedule set out in the Constitution. On the aforesaid premise, the impleading Petitioner seeks that he be added as an additional Respondent to this Writ Appeal and the aforesaid appearance of Sr. Adv. Sri. P.S. Raman on behalf of the writ Appellant be blotted off.