Which of the following statement(s) is/are not correct about the Attorney…

Concept: The office of the Attorney General for India is created by Article 76 of the Constitution, which sits in the chapter on the Union Executive, while his standing inside Parliament comes from Article 88. Between them these two Articles fix four separate things — the qualification required for appointment, the advisory duties owed to the Government, the courts in which he may appear, and the basis on which he holds office. Any claim about the Attorney General is therefore tested by matching it against the exact words of these Articles, not against a general impression of what a senior law officer does.

The governing provisions

• Article 76(1) — appointment. The President appoints a person who is qualified to be appointed a Judge of the Supreme Court.

• Article 76(2) — duties. He advises the Government of India on such legal matters, and performs such other duties of a legal character, as the President refers or assigns to him.

• Article 76(3) — right of audience. In the performance of his duties he has the right of audience in all courts in the territory of India.

• Article 76(4) — tenure. He holds office during the pleasure of the President; the Constitution prescribes no term of years and no fixed procedure of removal.

• Article 88 — Parliament. He has the right to speak in, and otherwise to take part in the proceedings of, either House, any joint sitting, and any parliamentary committee of which he is named a member — but he has no right to vote.

Application — testing each statement against the text

1. The first statement makes the appointment qualification that of a High Court Judge. Article 76(1) sets the qualification at that of a Judge of the Supreme Court. The wording of the statement therefore departs from the constitutional text, so it does not hold.

2. The second statement claims a right of audience in all the courts of the country. Article 76(3) confers exactly that right, in all courts in the territory of India. The statement matches the text and holds.

3. The third statement claims a right to take part in the proceedings of the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha. Article 88 confers the right to speak in and take part in the proceedings of either House (voting excepted). The statement matches the text and holds.

4. The fourth statement asserts a fixed tenure. Article 76(4) makes the office one held during the pleasure of the President, which is the opposite of a fixed term. The statement does not hold.

Cross-check and contrast

Two statements fail the text — the one that sets the qualification at High Court Judge, and the one that asserts a fixed tenure — so the code to be selected is the one naming statements 1 and 4. Each rival code can be eliminated by the same two Articles: any code that includes statement 2 would require Article 76(3) to be denied, and any code that includes statement 3 would require Article 88 to be denied; neither can be done. A frequent trap here is to blur the Attorney General with the Advocate General of a State under Article 165 — it is the Advocate General who must be qualified to be a Judge of a High Court, which is precisely the phrase the first statement borrows.