M.T. KHAN AND ORS. versus GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] 1 S.C.R. 117 · Decided: 05-01-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

M.T. KHAN AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. 
JANUARY 5, 2004 
(V. N. KHARE, CJ AND S.B. SINHA, J.] 
B 
Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 162, 165 and 367: 
Appointment of Additional Advocate Generals by the State-Challenge 
to-Writ Petition dismissed by High Court holding that having regard to C 
Article 367 of the Constitution and Section 13 of the General Clauses Act, the 
provisions for appointment of an Advocate General in singular would include 
plural-It cannot be presumed that Additional Advocate General/Generals so 
appoi111ed would pe1:form Constitutional functions-On appeal, Held: State, in 
exercise of its executive power, is competent to appoint as many Lauyers of D 
its choice as it thinks adequate to defend it in the legal proceedings-State 
could also confer on them such designation as it may deem fit and proper but 
they can no/ be authorized to perform Constitutional/Statutory functions-
However, State could not appoint more than one Advocate Genera/-
Interpretation of Statute-Golden rule of literal interpretation-Code of 
Criminal procedure, 1973; Ss. 24, 25/General Clauses Act; Section 13. 
E 
faecutive power vis-a-vis Constillltional power-Exercise of-Distinction 
between-Discussed 
Words and Phrases: 
'"1111/ess the context otherwise requires "-Meaning of in the context of 
Article 367 of the Constitution of India. 
The question which arose in this appeal was as to whether the State 
has power/authority to appoint Additional Advocate Generals in terms of 
F 
Article 165 of the Constitution of India. 
G 
It was contended for the appellants that Article 165 of the 
Constitution of India is clear and unambiguous and thus being not open 
to any interpretation; that provision of Section 13 of the General Clauses 
Act and Article 367 of the Constitution could not be invoked in the facts 
I I 7 
H 
118 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2004) I S.C.R. 
A and circums1ances of 1he case; that the appointment of Additional 
Advocate General under Article 165 of the Constitution by the State was 
without jurisdiction; and that the Advocate General is not only required 
to discharge constitutional functions but also statutory functions. 
On behalf of the respondents, it was submitted that appointment of 
B Additional Advocate General has necessitated because of increase in 
workload and the Advocate General alone could not handle such a heavy 
workload; and that State possess po\ver to appoint Additional Advocate 
General. 
c 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. Provision under Article 165 of the Constitution clearly 
shows that the Governor of the State has power to appoint a person who is 
qualified to be appointed as Judge of a High Court, as Advocate General. The 
constitutional scheme, thus, is that when a constitutional post is required 
D to be filled up by a person having the qualification specified therefor, he 
would alone perform the duties and functions, be it constitutional or 
statutory, attached to the said office. The Constitution does not envisage 
that such functions be performed by more than one person. The office of 
the Advocate General is a public office. He not only has a right to address 
the Houses of Legislature but also is required to perform other statutory 
E functions. Such public functions are required to be performed by the 
holder of a constitutional post having regard to his stature and keeping 
in view the fact that the State intended to endow such responsibility upon 
him. (112-C-G) 
F 
1.2. The Government of a State as a litigant can appoint as many 
Lawyers as it likes to defend it. The State is not prohibited from conferring 
such designation on such legal practitioners as it may deem fit and proper. 
But, the State cannot appoint more than one Advocate General. ( 122-H( 
1.3. High Courts, in their various decisions including the impugned 
G judgment, have proceeded on the basis that having regard to the provisions 
of Section 13 of the General Clauses Act and Article 367 of the 
Constitution of India, singular would include plural. The High Courts 
committed an error insofar as they failed to take into consideration the 
crucial words occurring in Article 367 of the Constitution "unless the 
context otherwise requires". It is a well-settled principle of law that the 
H provisions of the Constitution shall be construed having regard to the 
( 
·-
• 
' 
~ 
) 
M.T. KHAN v. GOVT. OF A.P. 
119 
expressions used therein. T.he question of interpre\ation

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.