Sir, article 145 deals with the Advocate-General who corresponds to the Attorney-General at the Centre. Clause (1) of article 145 deals with the appointment of the Advocate-General. Clause (2) corresponds to clause (2) of the present article. Clauses (1) and (2) of article 145 really correspond to clauses (1) and (2) of the present article. Clause (3) and (4) of article 145 are really important. Clause (3) provides that “That Advocate-General shall retire from office upon the resignation of the Chief Minister in the State, but he may continue in office until his successor is appointed or he is re-appointed.” Clause (4) provides that “That Advocate-General shall receive such remuneration as the Governor may determine.” The provisions of these two clauses do not appear in article 63. I submit, Sir, that the provisions of these two articles, 63 and 145, should be similar as they deal with two similar offices. One is the Attorney-General of India and the other is the Advocate-General of a State. The principle which I want to introduce by this amendment is that the position of the Attorney-General of India and that of the Advocate-General in the Provinces should stand on the same footing. In fact, in the Provinces the Advocate-General is to form so much a part of the Ministry that on the fall or resignation of the Ministry he has also to retire. This is the principle in the U.K. where the Attorney-General has to retire along with the retirement of the Ministry. It is a wholesome principle that the Advocate-General forms part of the Ministry and stands or falls with the rise and fall of the Ministry. It is also necessary that the Advocate-General must function so long as he is not re-appointed or a successor to him is appointed, because routine work cannot otherwise be carried on by the Governor or any other officer, he being a specialist and his retention on office for that temporary period is desirable, and that he must receive a pay which the Governor may determine. I submit that a similar principle should apply to the Attorney-General of India. In fact, he should also so much form part of the Government that he should also retire with the retirement of the Ministry. There is no reason why a difference should be made between the Attorney-General of India and the Advocate-General of a State. It may be, I do not know, that this difference was not intentional. It may be due to an accidental omission rather than deliberate policy. It is for this reason that I have attempted to draw the attention of the House to the difference and I suggest that the difference should be eliminated. As many honourable Members may not have any opportunity of considering individually the difference between these two articles. I have pointed out the difference and I hope they will give the matter due consideration.
