Appointment of Judge of High Court

Advocate General is appointed under Article 20 of the Constitution, whereas, Judge of the High Court is appointed under Article 43

Both the statutory provisions are independent

Since Article 20 of the Constitution itself does not envisage consultation by the President with the Chief Justice of Supreme Court Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Chief Justice of High Court in the matter of appointment of Advocate General, hence, there was no occasion for the High Court to itself imagine the word 'consultation' in Article 20 of the Constitution merely on the flimsy ground that the qualification of Advocate General and that of Judge High Court is same, hence, the procedure for appointment would also be the same.

Article 20 of the Constitution provides that a person qualified to be appointed a Judge of the High Court shall be appointed as the Advocate General for Azad Jammu and Kashmir

Qualification provided under Article 43 of the Constitution for appointment of a Judge of the High Court is that he should have been an Advocate or Pleader of the High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir or a High Court in Pakistan for a period aggregating, not less than ten years

Expression "has been an advocate of the High Court" should be taken to mean "has been practicing before the High Court"

It is to be assessed whether an advocate who handles very few briefs in a year could be said to be actually practicing

Supreme Court observed that in its estimation while making appointment to the post of Advocate-General the concerned should have to assess the ability of the advocate, the volume of his practice etc.

Objection of concerned Judge was that petitioners were not `aggrieved persons' for not being eligible for appointment in their place

Validity

Held, it was not necessary for an aggrieved person to have a strict juristic right, but his existing right would be sufficient to assail order for being illegal and adversely affecting his rights

Advocates had always be considered aggrieved in case of act done in violation of the Constitution or undermining of independence of judiciary

Petitioners for being members of legal fraternity were naturally interested in supremacy of the Constitution, law and independency of judiciary

Such objection was repelled in circumstances.

Plea was that judge once appointed could not be removed from his office except on recommendations of Supreme Judicial Council

Validity

Jurisdiction of Supreme Judicial Council being qualified and conditional would commence only on reference made by President or Chairman of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council on advice of Prime Minister or Chairman of Kashmir Council

Defect in appointment of Judge could not be gone into by Supreme Judicial Council which could only inquire into the matters enumerated in reference and make its recommendations

Such plea was repelled in circumstances.