Madras High Court Seeks Clarification from Tamil Nadu Government
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has issued a directive to the Tamil Nadu government to provide a status report regarding a petition alleging that the appointment of law officers in the state is being swayed by political influence. The directive was passed on Tuesday by a bench comprising Justices N Satish Kumar and Jothiraman.
Public Interest Litigation Highlights Concerns
This order was in response to a public interest litigation filed by advocate C Selvakumar, who challenged the appointment process for law officers at both the Madras High Court and its Madurai Bench. The petitioner contended that a document circulating on social media, purportedly from the All India Congress Committee’s Law Department, lists advocates recommended for various state counsel positions, suggesting political interference.
Allegations of Violating Transparency and Meritocracy
Selvakumar’s plea argued that such political recommendations undermine the principles of meritocracy and transparency, as established by the Supreme Court in the case of Mamata Mohanty v. State of Orissa. According to the petitioner, the current appointments contravene the Law Officers of High Court of Madras and its Bench at Madurai (Appointment) Rules, 2017.
Recent Appointments Under Scrutiny
The plea follows a series of temporary law officer appointments made by the state in May. Senior Advocates PV Balasubramaniam and T Gowthaman were appointed as Additional Advocate Generals, and Senior Advocate R John Sathyan was appointed on the criminal side, all on a temporary basis under Rule 5(11) of the 2017 Rules.
Subsequently, on May 26, the state appointed 17 temporary counsel on the civil side to assist the Government Pleader at the Madras High Court and its Madurai Bench. Meanwhile, the Tamil Nadu Home Department issued a notification inviting applications for government advocate positions on the criminal side.
More Read
Potential Impact on Ongoing Legal Proceedings
Selvakumar expressed concerns that the state is considering a politically-influenced list of 181 advocates for various positions, including Additional Advocate General and Special Government Pleader, to represent the state across different courts. He argued that such appointments, if made, would undermine the transparency and merit-based selection process.
The petitioner further cautioned that proceeding with these appointments during the pendency of the PIL could result in the creation of third-party rights, potentially compromising the objectives of the ongoing legal proceedings. The court has requested the state’s response to these allegations and will continue to monitor the developments in this case.
