Latest News
Back
Document:
AP High Court issues notice in plea challenging N Harinath’s appointment as ASG on ground of not being enrolled with the AP Bar Council
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has issued a notice on a writ petition challenging Advocate N Harinath's appointment as the Assistant Solicitor-General (ASG) for the Andhra Pradesh High Court (Solomon Raju v. Union of India and Ors).
On June 16, Justice G Shyam Prasad passed an order seeking a response from the Center and Assistant Solicitor General N Harinath on the plea filed by Advocate Solomon Raju.
Advocate Harinath's appointment as ASG has been challenged upon on the ground that Harinath isn't enrolled with the Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh but is enrolled with the Telangana Bar Council.
In this background, Raju contends that “the action of the respondent No.1 in appointing the 5th respondent as Assistant Solicitor General in respect of A.P. High Court by Order dated 20.05.2020 thereby depriving the right of the Advocates of AP High Court Bar Association/ Bar Council as illegal, irregular, irrational, contrary to section 6(d) & (e) of Advocates Act, 1961 and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India.” The solicitor further presents that "the post of Asst. Specialist General (showing up in the Andhra Pradesh High Court) is a post which is only implied for A.P. High Court."
He further added that the Central Government needs to elect an Advocate on the roles of the respective State Bar Council in designating ASGs.
According to the affidavit, Advocate Harinath was Standing Counsel for the Telangana High Court also, the request states.
Moreover, the Petitioner contends that "the very soul of Article 16 (of the Constitution) is gravely abused in the current arrangement, as the Advocates from the A.P. Bar Association and the Advocates on the moves of the A.P. Bar Council were denied of the chance."
In his appeal, Advocate Raju has called for the formulation of criteria for appointment as the ASGs, contending that it is being managed without conforming to any pre-decided rule. The Petitioner further expresses that the Office Memorandum portraying the procedure of appointment just “specifies about tenure and allocation of cases, it does not even specify the criteria and eligibility.”
The case will be taken up for hearing next on July 14.
Document:
