(1) The President shall appoint a person who is qualified to be appointed a Judge of the Supreme Court to be Attorney-General for India.

 

(2) It shall be the duty of the Attorney-General to give advice to the Government of India upon such legal matters, and to perform such other duties of a legal character, as may from time to time be referred or assigned to him by the President, and to discharge the functions conferred on him by or under this Constitution or any other law for the time being in force.

 

(3) In the performance of his duties the AttorneyGeneral shall have right of audience in all courts in the territory of India.

 

(4) The Attorney-General shall hold office during the pleasure of the President, and shall receive such remuneration as the President may determine.

Debate Summary

Draft Article 63

(1) The President shall appoint a person, who is qualified to be appointed a judge of the Supreme Court, to be Attorney-General for India.

(2) It shall be the duty of the Attorney-General to give advice to the Government of India upon such legal matters and to perform such other duties of a legal character, as may from time to time be referred or assigned to him by the President, and to discharge the functions conferred on him by or under this Constitution or any other law for the time being in force.

(3) In the performance of his duties the Attorney-General shall have right of audience in all courts in the territory of India.

(4) The Attorney-General shall hold office during the pleasure of the President, and shall receive such remuneration as the President may determine.

 

Draft Article 63 (Article 76 of the Constitution of India, 1950) was debated on 7th January 1949. This article regulated the office of Attorney-General for India.

 

A member moved an amendment which would require the Attorney-General to resign upon the resignation of the Prime Minister. He argued that the Constitution mandated the Advocate-General in the states to resign upon the Chief Minister’s resignation. Hence, a similar provision needed to be made for the Attorney-General. He argued that the Attorney-General and the Advocate-General must have the same footing in the Constitution. Moreover, England had a similar precedent.

 

There was another proposal which would make the remuneration of the Attorney-General subject to the law made by the Parliament, instead of the President. This would ensure a consistent salary that would not be subject to the discretion of the President.

 

The Assembly did not accept any of these proposals. It adopted the Draft Article without any amendments on 7th January 1949.