LIST OF EVENTS/SYNOPSIS26.5.2014The presentCentre Government came into powerheaded byHonble Prime Minister Sh. Narender Modi26,5,2014Print and Electronics mediawidely circulated in all national News Papers. One of the news paper namelyHinduprinted the news as under Rohtagi may be the next Attorney General28.5.2014The Respondent no.2 gave extensiveinterview in the print and electronics media and said news items were widely circulated in all national News Papers. One of the news paper namelyHinduprinted the news as under Mukul Rohtagi to take over as Attorney General The eminent Supreme Court Lawyers said that he has been offered the office of the top law office in the government and he has given his consent to it. Mr Rohatagi said that his top priority as the AG would be to streamline litigation in the Supreme Court I will see that the superiors court are not flooded with frivolous and petty litigation, he said. He would make all efforts to check that the government did not involve itself in inter-ministerial litigation.Mr Rohtagi has represented the Gujrat government in the Supreme Court in many cases on the 2002 Gujrat riots and fake encounter. These include the Best Bakery and Zahira Sheikh Cases.14.6.2014Respondent-4 was appointed as Attorney General of India for a fixed period of three years.It is submitted this proves that it was pre decided and the new Govt/respondent-1 without any established procedure picked respondent-2 for this Constitutional Post because of his close association with the ruling party/respondent-1It is relevant to mention here that aforesaid sequence only point out that respondent - 4 was appointed as Attorney General of India without following any procedureand of lawand is solely based upon pick and chose policy , done behind the close door by the political masters and appointment is done and charge of the said post is taken by the person appointed without taking oath of office and secrecy.It is submittedthe Transparency, Accountabilityin public life & fair judicial action are the right answer to check increasingmenace of violation of legal rights, hence judicial interference/reviewis necessary to make the constitutional post of Attorney General of India/ meaningful and to bring out from the clutches of politician who have made the constitutional post as political post with vested interest as decision are taken behind the door without following emphzero accountability and zero transparency of the constitutional post of Attorney General of India.It is submitted the political establishment uses to accommodate their favourite such brazen display of power is possible because of lack of clear provisions in legislation on selection process and now time has come to judicial scanner as Govt. have been sluggish in notifying detailed guidelines that can ensure open, transparent and competitive selections to this important public office/constitutional post.It is submitted in Association for Development Vs. Union Of India 2010 and 2013 Delhi High Court emphasised the need for fair and transparent appointments and urge the ministry of women and child development to develop objective evaluation methods for appointments.It is submitted appointment of respondent-2 is not based on any objective guidelines.It is submittedonly an appropriate decision-making authority after prescribed procedure can take decision for appointment and removal of Attorney General of India , but in appointment or removal of Attorney General of Indiapick and chose procedure for their own convenience has been adopted which is amounted as partisan or even illegal appointment.It is submitted respondent-1 appointed the respondent-2 as Attorney General of Indiain gross violations of settled law as declaredbythe Supreme Court in the case titled aswhichis as under No reasons why norms and guidelines for selection of candidates should not be framed and published so that the entire process of selection is fair, reasonable and transparent. It was further observed That receiving applications from candidate recommended by peoples who have no role to play in the process of selection may in fact have the effect of rendering the selection process suspect, for any such recommendations on as most likely to influence the selection process in a subtle manner to the prejudice of the candidate who are not resourceful enough to secure such recommendations, no matter they are otherwise equal, if not more , meritorious. It is submitted there is contradiction and conflict in appointment procedure adopted in two most important constitutional post wherein the appointment procedure of one is well established as per the procedure established by the constitution of India and well expended by pronouncement by various judgment of this Honble Court, but appointment procedure in the other at par constitutional post i.e to the post of Attorney General of Indiais silent, unaccountable, non transparent and is solely based upon pick and chose policy , done behind the close door by the political masters and appointment is done and charge of the said post is taken by the person appointed without taking oath of office and secrecy.It is submitted whether it is a legitimate interpretation of law and procedure adopted by respondent arbitrarywhich do notmake the personappointed as Attorney General and office of the Attorney General accountable as there is no provision in the Constitutionfor Attorney General of Indiathat before they enters upon their officetake oath of office and oath of secrecyas prescribed for other Constitutional Post like Chief Information officer, Central Vigilance Commissioner, Comptroller and Auditor General of India etcIt is submitted whetherit is legitimate in law and in the interest of society at large that the person who is first law officer of the country but who is not accountable for want of office of oath and secrecy and there is every possibilities that conflict ofinterest might hurt public interest at large particularly in Govt cases inApex court.It is submitted oath of office and secrecy caution the constitutional authority for their legal duties and consequences for non compliance and prevent conflict of interest but it is very strange that there is no check and balances to the constitutional post like Attorney General of India.That the qualifications required for appointment both as a Supreme Court judge and the Attorney General of Indiaare the same but the procedure for selection and appointment adopted is completely different as the office of the Supreme Court judge is fully Accountable, Transparent, with oath, under public scrutiny and with a age bar, whereas the office of the Attorney General of India are completely unaccountable, non transparent, without oath, without any age bar and is done by pick and choose policy by political masters with vested interest.It is submitted as Constitution of India is silent over the selection and appointment procedure and taking of oathto the post of Attorney General of India ,resulted the post of Attorney General of India has becomepolitical post rather constitutional postwhich is full of arbitratness and full of political whims and fancies against thepublic interest.It is submittedrelevant provision in case of appointment of Attorney General are as under76(1) The President shall appoint a person who is qualified to be appointed a Judge of the Supreme Court to the Attorney General of India.76(2) It shall be the duty of the Attorney General of India to give advice to the government of India upon such legal matters and to perform such others duties of a legal character, as may from time to time be referred or assign to him by the President, and to discharge the functions conferred on him by or under this Constitution or any other law for the tome being in force.76(3)In the performance of his duties, The Attorney General shall have right of audience in all courts in the territory of India.76(4)The Attorney General shall hold office during the pleasure of the President . and shall receive such remunerations as the President may determine.It is submitted it is not the question of appointment of present Attorney General of India, if we see the past, all the previous government did not follow any procedure, rules for the appointment of Attorney General of India andtill date besides the present AG, 13 Attorney General of India has been appointedin violation of settled lawwithout following any procedureand of law which amount to zero accountability and zero transparencyand is solely based upon pick and chose policy , done behind the close door by the political masters and appointment is done and charge of the said post is taken by the person appointed without taking oath of office and secrecy.It is submittedConstitution of India is silent on the issue of procedure to be adopted in selecting and appointing Attorney General of India and , hence there is need of interpretation of law in respect of procedure to be followed for appointment and removal ofAttorney General of India.It is submittedthe job ofAttorney General of Indiais very responsible job and cannot be treated as casual job of contractual nature and there are larger implication of becausewhatever theAttorney General of Indiadoes in the apex court Govt. cannot take its stand back/or revert back ifAttorney General of Indiadoes some thing out of fear or favour there is every possibility of conflict of interest in various cases where theAttorney General of Indiahas appeared on behalf of corporate sector.It is submitted as Constitution of India silent is on the issue of taking oath of office and secrecy of the constitutional post of Attorney General of India ,hence there is need of interpretation of law in respect ofTransparency, Accountabilityin public life & fair judicial action of office of Attorney General of India and the legally accountable duty of first law officer of Union of India , otherwise which is dangerous for the health of democracy.It is submitted even a nominated members of parliament has to take oath before he says any thing in the house butAttorney General of Indiahave no such accountability and he can speak in any of the house or its committees without any accountabilities as there is no procedureof oath of office and secrecy ofAttorney General of India.It is submitted for want of oath of office and secrecyAttorney General of Indiais not accountable for the secrets and sensitivematterscomes in his knowledge asAttorney General of Indiathrough govt he may disclose the same out of fear or favour , hence itis required thatAttorney General of Indiashould take oath of office and secrecy in the larger public interestIt is submitted the taking oath is a constitutional and statutoryduty ofa person appointed as Constitutional Authority otherwise there may be a drastic consequences against the public interest. It is submitted asAttorney General of Indiaare empowered to addresses both the houses of parliamentand for that purpose also duty bound to take oath of office and secrecy.The content of the oath was provided for in the Constitution, and required Members to express faith in the Constitution, the integrity of the nation and the law, and to faithfully discharge his duties.It is submittedthe respondents are under obligatins to follow the procedure in true letter and spirit as required for selection/appointment or removal of persons holding Constitutional Postin the larger public interest for appointment ofAttorney General of India and it cannot be left to the whims of respondentsIt is submitted there is no Law on this point ever decided by the apex court andaforesaid lacuna in selecting and appointingAttorney General of Indiais clearly violation of doctrines natural justice as well as it violates the basic structure of the Constitution and letter and spirit of lawIt is submittedit is an interesting substantial question of law/ case as to the interpretation of Constitution, which has far reaching consequence, has been raised and has a impact on the basis structure of constitution of Indiaas till date such important question of law relating to fundamental rights has not been decided and required to be examinedby a Constitution Bench in view of the impact on the fundamental rights of public at large and in view of conflict between the two Constitutional Authority which discriminate under article 14 of the Constitution of India.It is submitted it is right fundamental right of the citizen of India to have accountablefirst law officer of the Country to protect the larger interest of public at large without any conflicting interest and with fair, transparent selection and appointment of first law officer ofCountry.Hence the present Public Interest Litigation Petitionto frame a set of rules, procedure and guidelines be formulatedat par of other constitutional post for the post of Attorney General of India as Constitution of India is silent over the selection and appointment procedure to the post of Attorney General of India , resulted the post of Attorney General of India has becomepolitical post rather constitutional postwhich is full of arbitratness and full of political whims and fancies against thepublic interest andwithout following anyprocedureand of law which amount to zero accountability and zero transparencyand is solely based upon pick and chose policy , done behind the close door by the political masters and appointment is done and charge of the said post is taken by the person appointed without taking oath of office and secrecy. Hence it is required to follow theestablished procedure as prescribed in the case of Appointment of Supreme Court Judges as prescribed in Article 124(2) as qualification and criterionfor appointment of Attorney General of India is the samefor appointment as a judge for Honble Supreme Court of India.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA NEW DELHICIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTIONPUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. OF2014In the matter of the Article 32 of the Constitution of IndiaANDPublic Interest Litigation (PIL) in the matter of Appointment of Attorney General of India under Article 76 (1) of The Constitution of IndiaANDFor enforcing powers vested, interalia, in Article 32, 141and 142 of the Constitution of IndiaIN THE MATTTER OF:1Mr. Vibhor AnandSon of Sh. V.K.Anand52/8, Old RajinderNagar New Delhi-110060PetitionerVERSUS1Union of IndiaThroughMinistry of Law and Justice,4th Floor, A-Wing, Shastri Bhawan,New Delhi110001.2Mr Mukul RohtagiAttorney General of India,59, Sunder Nagar,New DelhiRespondentsPUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATIONS PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 AND OTHER RELATED ARTICLE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE DIRECTION OR ORDERS(A)TO FRAME A SET OF RULES, PROCEDURE AND GUIDELINES BE FORMULATEDAT PAR OF OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL POST FOR THE POST OF ATTORNEY GENERAL OF INDIA AS CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS SILENT OVER THE SELECTION AND APPOINTMENT PROCEDURE TO THE POST OF ATTORNEY GENERAL OF INDIA , RESULTED THE POST OF ATTORNEY GENERAL OF INDIA HAS BECOMEPOLITICAL POST RATHER CONSTITUTIONAL POSTWHICH IS FULL OF ARBITRATNESS AND FULL OF POLITICAL WHIMS AND FANCIES AGAINST THEPUBLIC INTEREST ANDWITHOUT FOLLOWING ANYPROCEDUREAND OF LAW WHICH AMOUNT TO ZERO ACCOUNTABILITY AND ZERO TRANSPARENCYAND IS SOLELY BASED UPON PICK AND CHOSE POLICY , DONE BEHIND THE CLOSE DOOR BY THE POLITICAL MASTERS AND APPOINTMENT IS DONE AND CHARGE OF THE SAID POST IS TAKEN BY THE PERSON APPOINTED WITHOUT TAKING OATH OF OFFICE AND SECRECY. HENCE IT IS REQUIRED TO FOLLOW THEESTABLISHED PROCEDURE AS PRESCRIBED IN THE CASE OF APPOINTMENT OF SUPREME COURT JUDGES AS PRESCRIBED IN ARTICLE 124(2) AS QUALIFICATION AND CRITERIONFOR APPOINTMENT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL OF INDIA IS THE SAMEFOR APPOINTMENT AS A JUDGE FOR HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.(B)DECLARE THE APPOINTMENT OF RESPONDENT-4 AS NULL AND VOID BEING VIOLATIVE OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AS NO LEGAL PROCEDURE FOR APPOINTMENT AS ATTORNEY GENERAL OF INDIA HAS BEEN ADOPTED IN APPOINTING THE RESPONDENT-4(C)THE TERM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERALBE FIXEDSO THAT THE PERSON TO BE APPOINTED TO THE RESPECTIVE POST CAN WORK WITHOUT FEARAND ANY COERCION(D)THE PROCEDURE BE FORMULATED FOR OATH TAKING BEFORE TAKING CHARGE OF THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERALAS THE CONSTITUTION OFINDIA SILENT ON THIS ISSUE(E)ARTICLE 76 CLAUSE (2) BE DECLARED NULL AND VOID AS IT VIOLATE THE BASIC STRUCTURE OF CONSTITUTION AND IT ACTUALLY STILLS FEAR THE MIND OF THE LAW OFFICER OF REMOVAL FROM THE SERVICE IF THEY DONOT ACT OF THE WISHES OF THE GOVERNMENT BEING POLITICALLY APPOINTEDTOTHE HONBLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIAAND OTHER JUDGES OF THE SUPREMECOURT OF INDIA, NEW DELHITHE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE PETITIONER ABOVE NAMEDMOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:1That thepetitioneris public spirited25 year old law student and by way of this petition wishes to seekcompleteIndependenceof judiciary which is

being compromised by the arbitrary provision and procedures enacted and followed by the Govt. of India since 1950, which are violating the basic structure of the Constitution of India and has the locus standito file the present petitionin view of the Judgment passed by the Honble Supreme Court of India commonly known asthe Judges Transfer Case -AIR 1982, SC 149.It is submitted the petitioner has come with clean hands, clean mind, heart and with clean objectives in the public interestand is filing the present Public Litigation petition in the public interest by challenging the procedure adopted by the Govt. of Indiain appointment of the Attorney General of India under Article 76 (1)of the Constitution of India by way of present petition challenging theNon Transparent, Non Accountable and Pick and Choose Procedure /Policy adopted by the Central in appointment of the very important Constitutional post of the Attorney General of India .It is submitted the positions of Attorney General of India is like a bridge between the Union of India and Supreme Court.It is submitted because the appointment of Attorney General of Indiais done behind the close door without following anyprocedureand of law which amount to zero accountability and zero transparencyand it proves that appointment ofAttorney General of Indiaproves this is purely a political appointment and full of arbitratness and full of political whims and fancies at the cost of public interest,The Respondent no. 1 have made the post of Attorney General of Indialike a political post instead of constitutional post2That the present Union Govt./Respondents 1 came into power on 26thMay 2014, and on 28thMay 2014 it was widely circulated in all National Newspapers that Sh. Mukul Rohtagi has consented to become the 14thAttorney General of India and ultimately it proves true. It is submitted this proves that it was pre decided and the new Govt/respondent-1 without any established procedure picked him for this Constitutional Post because of his close association with the ruling party/respondent-1.It is submittedonly an appropriate decision-making authority after prescribed procedure can take decision for appointment and removal of Attorney General of India , but in appointment or removal of Attorney General of Indiapick and chose procedure for their own convenience has been adopted which is amounted as partisan or even illegal appointment.It is submitted there is contradiction and conflict in appointment procedure adopted in two most important constitutional post wherein the appointment procedure of one is well established as per the procedure established by the constitution of India and well expended by pronouncement by various judgment of this Honble Court, but appointment procedure in the other at par constitutional post to the post of Attorney General of Indiais silent, unaccountable, non transparent and is solely based upon pick and chose policy , done behind the close door by the political masters and appointment is done and charge of the said post is taken by the person appointed without taking oath of office and secrecy.3That conflicting nature of two different procedures adopted for two equal constitutional post i.e. one is the appointment procedure of Supreme Court Judges under Article 124 clause 1-7 and the other one is the appointment ofAttorney General of India, which is silent, unaccountable, non transparent and is solely based upon pick and chose policy , done behind the close door by the political masters procedure adopted for appointment of Attorney General of India under Article 76 (1-3)4ThatArticle 124 of Constitution of India expressly provides the detailed procedures of appointment, tenure, age, oath and removal of the judges of the Supreme Court and the Article 76 of the Constitution of India is completely silent on these aspects, however both the post are constitutional post.5That as per Article 76(1) of Constitution of India a person who is qualified to be a judge of Supreme Court shall be appointed as the Attorney General of India. It is submitted relevant provisions are as under:-124 (2)Every Judge of the Supreme Court shall be appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal after consultation with such of the judges of the Supreme Court and of the High Courts in the States as the President may deem necessary for the purpose and shall hold office until he attains the age of sixty five years.124 (2A)The age of judge of the Supreme Court shall be determined by such authority and in such manner as parliament may be law provide.124 (3)A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a Judge of the Supreme Court unless he is a citizen of India and-----(a)Has been for at least five years a Judges of a High Court or of two or more such courts in succession or(b)Has been for at least ten years an advocate of a High Court or of two or more such courts in succession or(c)Is, in the opinion of the President, a distinguished jurist.76(1) The President shall appoint a person who is qualified to be appointed a Judge of the Supreme Court to the Attorney General of India.76(2) It shall be the duty of the Attorney General of India to give advice to the government of India upon such legal matters and to perform such others duties of a legal character, as may from time to time be referred or assign to him by the President, and to discharge the functions conferred on him by or under this Constitution or any other law for the tome being in force.76(3)In the performance of his duties, The Attorney General shall have right of audience in all courts in the territory of India.76(4)The Attorney General shall hold office during the pleasure of the President . and shall receive such remunerations as the President may determine.It is submitted then the appointment of majority of the previous 13 Attorney General of India were in contradiction of article 124(2) as majority of them were appointed after they had attained the age of 65 years. The details are as under:-28.01.1950Shri M.C. Setalvad appointed the first Attorney General of India at the age of 65+ and remains in office for over 13 years.02.03.1963Shri C.K. Daphtary appointed the second Attorney General of India at the age of 70+ and remains in office for over 5years.01.11.1968Shri Niren De appointed the third Attorney General of India at the age of 65+ and remains in office for over 11 years.01.04.1977Shri S.V. Gupte appointed the fourth Attorney General of India at the age of 65+ and remains in office for over 2 years.09.08.1979Shri L.N. Sinha appointed the fifth Attorney General of India at the age of 65+ and remains in office for over 4 years.09.08.1983Sh. K. Prasaran appointed the sixth Attorney General of India at the age of 56+ and remains in office for over 6 years.09.12.1989Shri Soli J, Sorabjee appointed the seventh Attorney General of India at the age of 59+ and remains in office for 1 year.03.12.1990Shri G. Ramaswamy appointed the eighthAttorney General of India at and remains in office for2 years.24.11.1992Shri Milon K Banerjee appointed the ninth Attorney General of India at the age of 64+ and remains in office for over 3 years.09.07.1996Shri Ashok Desai appointed the tenth Attorney General of India at the age of 66+ and remains in office for 2years.07.04.1998Shri Soli J. Sorabjee appointed the eleventh Attorney General of India at the age of 68+ and remains in office for over 6 years.05.06.2004Shri Milon K Banerjee appointed the third Attorney General of India at the age of 74+ and remains in office for 5 years.08.06.2009Shri G.E. Vahanvati appointed the thirteenth Attorney General of India at the age of 60+ and remains in office for over 5 years.6That the qualifications required for appointment both as a Supreme Court judge and the Attorney General of India but the procedure for selection and appointment adopted is completely different as the office of the Supreme Court Judge is fully Accountable, Transparent, with oath, under public scrutiny and with a age bar, whereas the office of the Attorney General of India are completely unaccountable, non transparent, without oath, without any age bar and is done by pick and choose policy by political masters with vested interest.7That procedure adopted under article 124(2) for appointment of Supreme Court judge is in violation of Article 14 as the said procedure is in contradiction with the procedure established in appointment of the Attorney General of India and the Article 76(1).8That as the procedural part of selection and appointment of Attorney General of India under Article 76 are silent and the provisions of article 124(2)(4)5(6) and (7)do not govern the appointment of Attorney General of India making it completely unaccountable, which is not only dangerous for democracy but also violate the basic structure of the Constitution of India.It is submitted when any person cannot hold the office of a SupremeCourt judge after attaining the age of 65 years, then howa person can be appointed as Attorney General of India whose qualification is required to be equal to that of the Supreme Court judge after attaining the age of 65 years?9That the procedure and practices adopted by the Govt. Of India in the appointment of the AG violates the fundamental rights of other constitutional posts including the judges of the Supreme Court for appointment beyond the age of 65 years.10That the present Central Government came into force on 26thMay 2014, and on 28thMay 2014 it was widely circulated in all national newspapers that Sh. Mukul Rohatagi has consented to become the 14thAG. This proves that it was pre decided and the Govt. Without any established procedure picked him for this post because of his close association with the ruling partyBecause only an appropriate decision-making authority after prescribed procedure can take decision for appointment and removal of Attorney General, but in appointment or

removal of Attorney General pick and chose procedure for their own convenience has been adopted which is amounted as partisan or even arbitrarySOLE QUESTION OF LAW OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE BEFORE YOUR LORDSHIPS BEING THE CUSTODIAN ANDGUARDIAN OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ISQUESTIONS OF LAW(i)Whether respondents should be allowed to adopt arbitrary procedure in appointing AttorneyGeneral of India/ Advocate General of respective States in the absence of prescribed procedure in the Constitution of India and when constitution is silent(ii)Whether it is a legitimate interpretation of law and procedure adopted by respondent arbitrarywhich do notmake the personappointed as Attorney General and office of the Attorney General accountable as there is no provision in the Constitutionfor Attorney General of India/Advocate General of respective States that before they enters upon their officetake oath of office and oath of secrecyas prescribed for other Constitutional Post like Chief Information officer, Central Vigilance Commissioner, Comptroller and Auditor General of India etc(iii)Whether it is legitimate in law and in the interest of society at large that the person who is first law officer of the country but who is not accountable for want of office of oath and secrecy and there is every possibilities that conflict ofinterest might hurt public interest at large particularly in Govt cases inApex court/ High Court for example.It is submitted oath of office and secrecy caution the constitutional authority for their legal duties and consequences for non compliance and prevent conflict of interest but it is very strange that there is no check and balances to the constitutional post like Attorney General of India and Advocate General of respective States.(iv) Whether the Arbitrary procedure adopted by the Government of India/Respondentssince 1950 in the appointment of Attorney General of India who had crossed the age of 65 years before such appointment or during their tenure, under Article 76(1) which requires fulfilment of conditions specified under article 124(3) violates the fundamental rights of the Judges of the Supreme Court to have a tenure beyond the age of 65 years?(v)Whether the age bar set under Article 124(2) applies on the appointment of Attorney General Of India made under Article 76(1), which has to be done in accordance with the conditions specified under Article 124(3)?(vi)That the procedure adopted by the govt. since 1950 in appointment of the Attorney General Of India under Art. 76(1) by appointing persons above the age of 65 years is completely arbitrary and violates the fundamental rights of the citizens/ legal professionals/ sitting judges to have a tenure beyond the age of 65 years.(vii)That 10 out of 13 previous Attorney Generals of India appointed had crossed the age of 65 years before such appointment or during their tenure as the Attorney General. These appointments violates article 14 of the constitution.(viii)That Article 76(1) expressly states that The President shall appoint a person who is qualified to be appointed a judge of the Supreme Court to be Attorney General for India.G R O U N D SO FI N T E R F E R E N C E S(A)Because as per Article 76 of Constitution of India The Post ofAttorney Generalof India and is a Constitutional Post and Attorney General of India have to be appointed according to the Constitution of India but Constitution of India is silent what procedure are to be followed for appointment and removal of Attorney General of India and respondent has adopted arbitrary self made pick and choose procedure for appointment of such a prominent constitutional post, which is contraryto settled law

(B)Because Constitution of India is silent on the issue of procedure to be adopted in selecting and appointing Attorney General of India, hence there is need of interpretation of law in respect of procedure to be followed for appointment and removal ofAttorney General of India.(C)Because the job ofAttorney General of Indiais very responsible job and cannot be treated as casual job of contractual nature and there are larger implication of becausewhatever theAttorney General of Indiadoes in the apex court cannot take its stand back/or revert back ifAttorney General of Indiadoes something out of fear or favour there is every possibility of conflict of interest in various cases where theAttorney General of Indiahas appeared on behalf of corporate sector.(D)Because Constitution of India silent is on the issue of taking oath of office and secrecy of the constitutional post of Attorney General of India,hence there is need of interpretation of law in respect ofTransparency, Accountabilityin public life & fair judicial action of office of Attorney General of India/ Advocate General of respective States and the legally accountable duty of first law officer of Union of India otherwise which is dangerous for the health of democracy.It is submitted even a nominated members of parliament has to take oath before he says any thing in the house butAttorney General of Indiahave no such accountability and he can speak in any of the house or its committees without any accountabilities as there is no procedure of oath of office and secrecy ofAttorney General of India.It is submitted for want of oath of office and secrecyAttorney General of Indiais not accountable for the secrets and sensitivematterscomes in his knowledge asAttorney General of Indiathrough govt he may disclose the same out of fear or favour, hence itis required thatAttorney General of Indiashould take oath of office and secrecy in the larger public interest.It is submitted the taking oath is a constitutional and statutoryduty ofa person appointed as Constitutional Authority otherwise there may be a drastic consequences against the public interest. It is submitted asAttorney General of Indiaare empowered to addresses both the houses of parliament and for that purpose also duty bound to take oath of office and secrecy.The content of the oath was provided for in the Constitution, and required Members to express faith in the Constitution, the integrity of the nation and the law, and to faithfully discharge his duties.(E)Because the Transparency, Accountabilityin public life & fair judicial action are the right answer to check increasingmenace of violation of legal rights, hence judicial interference/reviewis necessary to make the constitutional post of Attorney General of Indiameaningful and to bring out from the clutches of politician who have made the constitutional post as political post with vested interest as decision are taken behind the door without following procedure and against the interest of natural justice resulted there is zero accountability and zero transparency of the constitutional post of Attorney General of India.(F)Because the respondents are under obligations to follow the procedure in true letter and spirit as required for selection/appointment or removal of persons holding Constitutional Postin the larger public interest for appointment ofAttorney General of India it cannot be left to the whims of respondents(G)Because The respondents are under obligation to follow the established procedure in true letter and spirit as required for appointment or removal of persons holding Constitutional Post and in the larger public interestbefore invoking the doctrine of pleasure of President.(H)Because there is no Law on this point ever decided by the apex court andaforesaid lacuna in selecting and appointingAttorney General of Indiais clearly violation of doctrines natural justice as well as it violates the basic structure of the Constitution and letter and spirit of law(I)Because it is an interesting substantial question of law/ case as to the interpretation of Constitution, which has far reaching consequence, has been raised and has a impact on the basis structure of constitution of Indiaas till date such important question of law relating to fundamental rights has not been decided and required to be examinedby a Constitution Bench in view of the impact on the fundamental rights of public at large and in view of conflict between the two Constitutional Authority which discriminate under article 14 of the Constitution of India.(J)Because it is right fundamental right of the citizen of India to have accountable first law officer of the Country to protect the larger interest of public at large without any conflicting interest and with fair, transparent selection and appointment of first law officer ofCountry.(K)Guidelines are required to be framed at least for limited purpose/period/short period to prevent conflict between Article 124 and Article 76.(L)Because in the instant Public Interest Petition substantial question of law as to the interpretation of constitution has been raised and determination is necessaryin the larger public interest.(M)Because it is the duty of the court to see that the administration of justice is not perverted, prejudiced, obstructed or interfered with.P R A Y E RIt is prayed to this Honble Court(A)To frame a set of rules, procedure and guidelines be formulatedat par of other constitutional post for the post of Attorney General of India as Constitution of India is silent over the selection and appointment procedure to the post of Attorney General of India , resulted the post of Attorney General of India has becomepolitical post rather constitutional postwhich is full of arbitratness and full of political whims and fancies against thepublic interest andwithout following anyprocedureand of law which amount to zero accountability and zero transparencyand is solely based upon pick and chose policy , done behind the close door by the political masters and appointment is done and charge of the said post is taken by the person appointed without taking oath of office and secrecy. Hence it is required to follow theestablished procedure as prescribed in the case of Appointment of Supreme Court Judges as prescribed in Article 124(2) as qualification and criterionfor appointment of Attorney General of India is the samefor appointment as a judge for Honble Supreme Court of India.(B)Declare the Appointment of Respondent-2 as null and void being violative of Constitution of India as no legal procedure for appointment as Attorney General of India has been adopted in appointing the respondent-2(C)The term for the Attorney Generalbe fixedso that the person to be appointed to the respective post can work without fearand any coercion(D)The procedure be formulated for oath taking before taking charge of the office of the Attorney Generalas the Constitution ofIndia silent on this issue

(E)Article 76 clause (2) be declared null and void as it violate the basic structure of constitution and it actually stills fear the mind of the law officer of removal from the service if they donot act of the wishes of the government being politically appointed.(F)Direction be given to respondent no. 1-2 to furnish entire information regarding procedure followed in selecting and appointing respondent-2 and other ( previous ) 13 Attorney General of Indiaas Attorney General of India and on what basis recommendation were sent to President of India for appointment ofrespondent-2 and other ( previous ) 13 as Attorney General of India and further direction be given toproduce followingentire record in relation to appointment of respondent-2 as Attorney General of India.(G)Recommendation which were sent by the respondent no. 1Ministry of Law/ Govt. Of India toappointing authority i.e President of India/ Presidents Secretariat recommending for appointment ofrespondent-2 or any other person as Attorney General of India(H)Relevant rules and regulation and procedureadopted for appointment of respondent-2 as Attorney General of Indiaby respondent-1.(I)When the process of appointment of Attorney General of India was started and at whoseinstanceafter assuming the office by the New Govt headed by Honble PM Narender Modi ,(J)When the selection committee was constituted and names withdesignation of the members of the selectioncommitteealongwith details of each meetings including date ,timings , agenda and minutes of the meetings held by such selection committee and names of the persons who were considered by the Selection Committee for the post of Attorney General of India andFinal findings of the Selection Committee in coming to the conclusion of selecting /appointingMr Mukul Rohtagi as Attorney General of India(K)When and by whom oath of office and Secrecy was administrated to theRespondent-2 as Attorney General of India(L)Further Direction be given to respondents to advertise the vacancy for the post of Attorney General of India atleast in at national news paper and also published on the ministry website.AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER IN PERSON AS DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAYDRAWN& FILED BY:MR. VIBHOR ANANDPetitioner- in-PersonDrawn on: 09.09.2014Filed on: 12.09.2014Place: New DelhiIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA NEW DELHICIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTIONPUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. OF2014IN THE MATTTER OF:Mr. Vibhor Anand....PetitionerVERSUSUnionof India & Anr....RespondentsCERTIFICATECertificate that the Public Interest Litigation Petition is confined only to the pleadings before the court.It is further certified that the copies of the annexures attached to this Special Leave Petition are necessary to answer the question of law raised in the petition or to make out grounds urged in the Public Interest Litigation Petition or consideration of this Honble Court.FILED BYFiled on:12.09.2014[VIBHOR ANAND]PETITIONER IN PERSONNew Delhi

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA NEW DELHICIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTIONPUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. OF2014IN THE MATTTER OF:Mr. Vibhor Anand....PetitionerVERSUSUnionof India & Anr....RespondentsAFFIDAVITI, Vibhor Anand Law Student, having its office at 52/8, Old Rajender Nagar, New Delhi 110 060 do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under:-1.That the deponent is the petitioner hence well conversant with the facts of the case and competent to swear this affidavit.2.That the contents of the accompanying PIL Para __to __ , pagesto, list of dates and events page B toand I.As are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and same has been drafted by myself.3.That the annexure filed along with the transfer petition are true and correct translated copies of their respective originals.DEPONENTVERIFICATIONVerified on thisday of September, 2014 at New Delhi that the contents of the above noted affidavit para 1 to 3 are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.DEPONENT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA NEW DELHICIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTIONI.A. NOOF 2014INPUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. OF2014IN THE MATTTER OF:Mr. Vibhor Anand....PetitionerVERSUSUnionof India & Anr....RespondentsAPPLICATION SEEKING PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND ARGUE THE MATTER IN PERSONTO,THE HONBLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIAAND HIS COMPANION JUDGES OF THEHONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.THE HUMBLE APPLCIATION OF THE PETITIONER ABOVE NAMEDMOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:1.The petitioner has filed the accompanying Public Interest Litigation for the establishment of fundamental rights of the Petitioner in person, which are suspended due to a criminal conspiracy fabricated by the Government of India.2.The Petitioner is fully conversant with the facts of the case and fully capable in arguing the case.PRAYERIt is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Honble Court may be pleased to:-a)grant permission to the Petitioner in person to appear and argue the matter in person.DRAWN& FILED BY:MR. VIBHOR ANANDPetitioner- in-PersonDrawn on: 09.09.2014Filed on: 10.09.2014Place: New Delhi

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA NEW DELHICIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTIONPUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. OF2014IN THE MATTTER OF:Mr. Vibhor Anand....PetitionerVERSUSUnionof India & Anr....RespondentsWITHI.A.NO.OF 2014APPLICATION SEEKING PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND ARGUE THE MATTER IN PERSONPAPER BOOK[KINDLY SEE INSIDE FOR INDEX]PETITIONER IN PERSON:: MR.VIBHOR ANANDINDEXS. No.PARTICULARSPage Nos.

1.Listing ProformaA1-A2

2.Synopsis & List of DatesB-

3.Public Interest Litigation Petition with Affidavit.1 -

4.ANNEXURE-P-1:-Copy of the New Paper Articles dated 26.05.2014.

5.ANNEXURE-P-2:-Copy of the New Paper Articles dated 29.05.2014.

6.I.A.NO.OF 2014Application seeking permission to appear and argue the matter in person