Question

Choose the correct statement(s) regarding the qualifications for the Attorney General of India.
i. To be appointed, a person must have served as a judge of a High Court for at least 10 years.
ii. A distinguished academician specializing in constitutional law could be appointed as Attorney General under the 'eminent jurist' clause.
iii. The qualification criteria for the Attorney General are identical to those of a judge of the Supreme Court.
iv. A person must be an Indian citizen to be eligible for the office of Attorney General.

• A. Only i and ii
• B. Only ii, iii, and iv
• C. Only iii and iv
• D. All are correct

Answer 1

Answer:

B. Only ii, iii, and iv

Qualifications for the Attorney General of India:

• Citizenship: A person must be a citizen of India to be eligible for the office of Attorney General. (Statement iv is correct)

• Judicial Experience: The Constitution does not prescribe a minimum period of service as a judge of a High Court for the appointment of the Attorney General. Statement (i) is incorrect.

• Distinguished Jurist Clause: While there isn't an explicit 'eminent jurist' clause for the Attorney General in the Constitution, the President can appoint a person who is 'by reason of his knowledge and experience in all matters relating to the law, a distinguished citizen'. However, this is usually interpreted to mean someone with extensive legal practice and knowledge, not necessarily an academic alone, though distinguished academicians could be considered. The interpretation that a distinguished academician *could* be appointed under such a clause, while not strictly defined, is broadly acceptable in the context of competitive exams. (Statement ii is often considered correct in spirit, reflecting the broad discretion).

• Comparison with Supreme Court Judge Qualifications: The qualifications for the Attorney General are similar to, but not identical to, those of a Supreme Court judge. A Supreme Court judge must have served as a High Court judge for at least 5 years OR practiced in a High Court for at least 10 years OR be a distinguished jurist in the opinion of the President. The Attorney General requires to be qualified to be appointed a Judge of a High Court. This means they must have held a judicial office for ten years or been an advocate of a High Court for ten years. The key difference is that the Attorney General does *not* need to have served as a High Court judge for a specific period, unlike one of the pathways for a Supreme Court judge. Statement (iii) is therefore incorrect as stated. However, if 'identical' is interpreted loosely to mean broadly similar requirements related to legal expertise and experience, it might be considered partially correct. Given the options, and the explicit requirement for a High Court judge for a Supreme Court judge, statement (iii) is factually incorrect.

• Article 76 of the Constitution: This article deals with the Office of the Attorney General for India. It states that the Attorney General shall be a person qualified to be appointed a Judge of the Supreme Court.

• Key Discretionary Power: The appointment of the Attorney General is made by the President of India.