Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"19. It is apparent from the above that the role of the AGI is not limited to merely acting as a lawyer for the Government of India as is contended by the respondent; the AGI is a constitutional functionary and is also obliged to discharge the functions under the Constitution as well as under any other law.

20. Although, it cannot be disputed that AGI is a constitutional functionary, the point in issue is whether he can be termed as an ―authority‖. The respondent has relied heavily on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Sukhdev Singh (supra) and Som Prakash Rekhi (supra) to contend that the AGI cannot be considered as an authority since the office of Attorney General of India does not have the power to alter, by his own will directed to that end, the rights, duties; liabilities or other legal relations, either of himself or of other.

21. I am unable to accept the aforesaid contention, for the reason that the term ―authority‖ as used in the opening sentence of Section 2(h) of the Act cannot be interpreted in a restrictive sense. The expression ―authority‖ would also include all persons or bodies that have been conferred a power to perform the functions entrusted to them. Merely because the bulk of the duties of the AGI are advisory, the same would not render the office of the AGI any less authoritative than other constitutional functionaries. There are various bodies, which are entrusted with ‗staff functions' (i.e. which are advisory in nature) as distinct from ‗line functions'. The expression ―authority‖ as used in Section 2(h) cannot be read as a term to exclude bodies or entities which are, essentially, performing advisory functions.