Chandigarh, Jan 21: The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Wednesday dismissed a public interest litigation challenging the appointment of Pravindra Singh Chauhan as the Advocate-General of Haryana. The court ruled that Chauhan fulfills all necessary eligibility requirements as prescribed under the Constitution, effectively ending the legal challenge against his selection.
The Division Bench, led by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu, clarified that the judicial power to remove a public official through a writ of “quo warranto” is strictly limited to cases where the individual lacks the fundamental qualifications for the office. The petitioner had claimed that the appointment violated Article 165(1) of the Constitution and the standard procedures used for selecting High Court judges.
However, the court noted that the qualifications for the Advocate-General are clearly defined under Article 165, which aligns with the requirements for a High Court judge. These include being a citizen of India and having at least ten years of experience as an advocate in a High Court. The Bench found that Chauhan’s credentials were not in dispute regarding these specific legal benchmarks.
Addressing the scope of the legal challenge, the court maintained that the proceedings must remain focused on eligibility rather than other grievances. The Bench further noted that the petitioner failed to provide any evidence suggesting the respondent lacked the required years of practice or the necessary citizenship status.
“While seeking a writ of quo warranto, it is incumbent upon the petitioner to establish that the holder of the office, whether statutory or constitutional, suffers a lack of eligibility to hold the office,” the Bench observed during the proceedings.
The court also refused to entertain allegations regarding professional conduct or impropriety within this specific petition. The judges mentioned that such matters fall outside the narrow scope of a quo warranto writ, which is “confined strictly to the constitutional or statutory eligibility” of the person holding the position.
“A bare perusal of Article 165 of the Constitution reveals that a person who is qualified to be appointed as a Judge of a High Court is eligible to be appointed as Advocate-General of the State concerned,” the Bench directly said in its ruling.
Read more: HC to scrutinize Haryana’s prosecution appointments
