The Constitution of India
Article 165
Advocate-General for the State
(1) The Governor of each State shall appoint a person who is qualified to be appointed a Judge of a High Court to be Advocate-General for the State.
(2) It shall be the duty of the Advocate-General to give advice to the Government of the State upon such legal matters, and to perform such other duties of a legal character, as may from time to time be referred or assigned to him by the Governor, and to discharge the functions conferred on him by or under this Constitution or any other law for the time being in force.
(3) The Advocate-General shall hold office during the pleasure of the Governor, and shall receive such remuneration as the Governor may determine.
Why this exists
This Article mirrors Article 76 (Attorney-General for India) at the State level, ensuring every State has its own senior legal advisor to represent and guide the government on constitutional and legal matters, drawing on the British and pre-independence Indian practice of having a chief law officer for the executive.
How courts read it
Courts have generally treated the Advocate-General's post as a constitutional office distinct from ordinary government service, holding that the 'pleasure of the Governor' clause means the position lacks security of tenure like a judge's, but has not been the subject of major landmark rulings comparable to those on the Attorney-General.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: The Advocate-General is a judge or has judicial powers.
Fact: The Advocate-General is only required to be *qualified* to become a High Court judge, but the role itself is that of a legal advisor to the government, not a judicial position. - Myth: The Advocate-General has a fixed term like judges do.
Fact: Article 165(3) makes clear the Advocate-General serves at the Governor's pleasure, meaning they can be removed at any time without a fixed tenure.