Elisha Vaswani
In the course of a hearing, CJI Bobde observed that “An advocate general would be considered as a part of the government, and what he thinks is what the government thinks.”
The above observation ensued as a reply to Senior Counsel AM Singhvi’s contentions raised in the petition challenging the order of Karnataka High Court.
The aforementioned, seeks to quash the Government’s order pertaining to Mahabaleshwar Temple’s management being handed over to Ramchandrapura Math.
The Chief Justice of India stated that “An advocate general is bound to give an opinion which serves his…”. Singhvi while putting forth his submissions, remarked that this would amount to debasement of the Advocate General’s office.
However the incumbent CJI begged to differ, he opined that “No there’s no question of a debasement. An advocate general is considered to be part of the government, and ….. What the Advocate General thinks is what the government thinks”
In the matter in question, only the sanctity of Advocate General’s opinion was being perused.The bench ultimately proceeded to reserve the orders for interim relief in the management of Mahabaleshwar temple case.