Question map
Consider the following state- ments: 1. The Advocate General of a State in India is appointed by the President of India upon the recommendations of the Governor of the con- cerned State. 2. As provided in the Code of Civil Procedure, High Courts have original appel- late advisory jurisdiction at the State level. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Explanation
Statement 1 is incorrect because the Advocate General of a State is appointed by the Governor of that State, not by the President [2]. According to Article 165, the Governor appoints a person qualified to be a High Court judge to this constitutional post [2]. Statement 2 is also incorrect. While High Courts possess original and appellate jurisdiction, they do not have 'advisory jurisdiction' at the State level. Advisory jurisdiction is a specific power granted only to the Supreme Court of India under Article 143, where the President may seek its opinion. Furthermore, the jurisdiction of High Courts is primarily governed by the Constitution and specific statutes rather than being broadly defined as 'original appellate advisory' under the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, neither statement is correct.
Sources
- [1] Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 54: Advocate General of the State > APPOINTMENT AND TERM > p. 452
- [2] Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 13: The State Executive > 4. The Advocate-General > p. 278