Court Rules Constitutional Eligibility Met, Dismisses Allegations of Impropriety as Grounds for Quo Warranto
In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Pradeep Singh Advocate challenging the appointment of Shri Pravindra Singh Chauhan as the Advocate General of Haryana. The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry, delivered the judgment on January 21, 2026, emphasizing that the respondent met all constitutional eligibility criteria for the role.
The petitioner, represented by Mr. Jagmohan Singh Bhatti, argued that Mr. Chauhan’s appointment was in violation of constitutional provisions, specifically Article 165 of the Indian Constitution, which outlines the qualifications for the Advocate General. The petitioner contended that Mr. Chauhan did not meet the necessary standards for holding the office, drawing parallels with the qualifications required for a High Court Judge under Article 217. Allegations of past impropriety and misdemeanour were also raised as grounds for disqualification.
However, the Court clarified that the primary consideration for the issuance of a writ of quo warranto is the eligibility of the office holder according to constitutional or statutory provisions. The Bench reiterated that allegations unrelated to constitutional eligibility, such as impropriety or misdemeanour, cannot form the basis for such a writ.
Article 165 mandates that the Advocate General must be qualified to be appointed as a Judge of a High Court. This requires Indian citizenship and at least ten years of practice as an advocate in a High Court. The Court noted that Mr. Chauhan fulfilled these criteria, being a citizen of India with over ten years of legal practice, facts which were undisputed in the petition.
The Bench further elucidated that the writ of quo warranto is not applicable to address allegations of misdemeanour, which fall outside the scope of constitutional eligibility. Consequently, the Court found no grounds to question Mr. Chauhan’s appointment and dismissed the petition.
This decision underscores the judiciary's stance on maintaining a strict interpretation of constitutional provisions regarding the eligibility of high office holders, focusing primarily on the statutory criteria rather than subjective assessments of propriety or conduct.
Bottom Line:
A writ of quo warranto cannot be issued unless it is demonstrated that the person holding a statutory or constitutional office lacks eligibility as per constitutional or statutory provisions. Allegations of impropriety or misdemeanour unrelated to constitutional eligibility are not grounds for such writs.
Statutory provision(s): Article 165, Article 217, Article 226, Article 227 of the Constitution of India
Pradeep Singh Advocate v. State of Haryana, (Punjab And Haryana)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2842587
