Notify draft rules on law officer appointments: HC

CHENNAI: The appointment of

law officers

in the state could soon see transparency in selection, consideration of legal acumen and greater accountability rather than the alleged political considerations, with the Madras high court directing the government to notify the

draft rules

on such

appointments

. Draft rules can be later amended or added upon.

Earlier a batch of petitions, including a PIL by advocate V Vasanthkumar, said merit and integrity had to be the criteria for appointing law officers. Underlining the current partisan process, the lawyer referred to a Supreme Court judgment and said the appointment could not be solely on political considerations and the judiciary had to be consulted. The petitions sought directions to the state and Puducherry government to frame guidelines.

The court named senior advocates R Krishnamoorthy and A L Somayaji as amicus curiae who recently submitted a draft of the Tamil Nadu Law Officers in Different Courts in the State (Appointment) rules which “took into account draft prepared by the government and certain other suggestions.”

The draft rules were made for appointment of advocate general, additional advocate general, government pleader, additional government pleader, district government pleader, special government pleader, public prosecutor, additional public prosecutor, government advocate and government law officer. The rules comprised chapters on preamble, set-up in high court, eligibility of government law officers, method of appointment in high court, government law officers in district courts, additional district courts, sub courts and munsif courts along with method of their appointment, removal of law officers, disqualification, review of performance and appointment of a standing counsel at the Supreme Court.

The first bench of Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice M Sundar said, “ It will be now open to the state government to proceed and notify these draft rules, unless they some concerns, which can be brought to the notice of the court…” The bench also said “the records produced before us only have resignations and bio datas. There are no noting whether any decision was taken to call for bio data…”

The matter has been posted to March 16 for further hearing.