ORDER RAVI S. DHAVAN, CJ.:- In case after case in which the Advocate General is obliged to appear by law or by the Constitution, he evades the proceedings. It does not concern the Court, how much he attends to his chambers, or how much he exercises the right conferred on him by the Constitution to address both houses of the Legislature-an opportunity which might provide some guidance in a State which is not ideal in its administration. This very right shows the exalted position of the Advocate General given by the Constitution. But so does the High Court has its position; if the High Court did not exist, would there be a need for an Advocate General? 2. Somehow the Advocate General of Bihar has made it his habit not to attend Court, and to send his lieutenants to attend to the proceedings, when causes require his presence. Under the Constitution, his deputies cannot substitute for him, they may assist him. What his deputies cannot do in the Legislature, they cannot do at the High Court. An Additional Advocate General, etc. perhaps has been tailored for assistance of the Advocate General, or perhaps by political favour. But this does not mean that where there is an obligation to appear, the Advocate General will disappear. 3. The Court has before it, lest the Advocate General plead ignorance of this, several cases which are co-incidentally coming up simultaneously. One is a case of an order of the High Court, affirmed by the Supreme Court, to be implemented in letter and spirit. This is the Bhagalpur incident of violence by the police. Their appeals at the Supreme Court having failed, four officers were directed by the Supreme Court to surrender their bail bonds to the Court which granted them, else they were to be arrested to serve out their sentences. The police officers did not surrender, and a misadvised Deputy Superintendent of Police was seeking a process from the High Court, which appears to be collusion to avoid the direction of the Supreme Court and the High Court simultaneously arising out of these proceedings. The Director General of Police came under contempt proceedings, he faces a charge for violation of the orders of the High Court and the Supreme Court. The Director General of Police came under contempt proceedings, he faces a charge for violation of the orders of the High Court and the Supreme Court. If the officers are not arrested forthwith, the Court told the DIG, he will go to jail himself for contempt as an abettor of the situation, and such other officers who fall in line with him. The order of the Supreme Court and the High Court were compromised for two and a half months. The police officers being chased for arrest by the State, provided the efforts were serious, were absconders, but not declared so immediately. All this is happening under the nose of the Advocate General. 4. The next case is about a judicial officer having been roughed up by the police, abused or assaulted and to what degree, the matter has yet to be seen. The matter has been reported in the media. Notice was issued to the Advocate General, but he avoids appearing before the Court, and thus insults the notice. 5. The third matter is about officer-in-charge summoned to attend judicial proceedings, by a Judicial officer in the district of Arrah, cocking a snoop at judicial proceedings. The District Judge has reported the matter. The Court desires the Advocate General to examine this matter, but he would not present himself. 6. Of many other proceedings and instances where the Advocate General avoids the proceedings of the High Court, State functionaries are facing contempt proceedings, and the situation is being complicated by an Advocate General who has no time to either prosecute the State functionaries or defend them, as the case may be. 7. There is the case of the Chief Secretary, Bihar, it was filed in December, last. The Chief Secretary was committed to custody by an Hon'ble Judge of this Court, in contempt proceedings. He is not party in the original case nor the contempt matter as originally framed, but something happened at the Bar of the Court where the contempt matter was pending. The Chief Secretary saw an indictment to be put behind Bars, the Secretary who was facing contempt conveniently escaped. Where was the Advocate General on that day? This proceeding examines the liability of the Secretary concerned from time to time who dealt with the matters so as not to show obedience with the orders of the Court. The Chief Secretary saw an indictment to be put behind Bars, the Secretary who was facing contempt conveniently escaped. Where was the Advocate General on that day? This proceeding examines the liability of the Secretary concerned from time to time who dealt with the matters so as not to show obedience with the orders of the Court. If the Chief Secretary is to be saved, then many more are answerable. If the Chief Secretary is taking the blame as the scape goat, then it has landed him in trouble. Now he files an appeal without the assistance of the Advocate General. The appeal was filed through a state counsel. What is the Advocate General's interest in the case? Nil. 8. He did take an interest, but only for one day. During the process of the filing of the Chief Secretary's appeal against an indictment for Contempt, the Chief Minister of the State made a telephone call to the Chief Justice. This was 15 December, 2003, after she had spoken, her husband, Mr. Lalu Prasad Yadav, also spoke to the Chief Justice. They wanted to ask the Chief Justice if he was aware what had happened in his Court, that the Chief Secretary had been sent behind the, Bars. The Chief Justice indicated to them that the judges do not exchange notes while they discharge their official business. They said they had a panicked Chief Secretary before them, and the Chief Justice should do something about it. They were told that the Advocate General is the man they should be speaking to, not the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice informed his colleague on the Bench of this unusual phone call. The judges thought they would take the matter with good grace and a generous spirit. The judges were totally conscious of the fact that our Chief Minister and perhaps some in politics with her, may not be oriented in the nuances of the formal functioning of a Parliamentary Democracy, and all its institutions. Totally conscious of the fact that the sophistication of Parliamentary practices quoted by Erskine Mayor otherwise may not be in their knowledge, and the incident should perhaps best be played down, the Court thus wrote its order of 16/12/2003. Totally conscious of the fact that the sophistication of Parliamentary practices quoted by Erskine Mayor otherwise may not be in their knowledge, and the incident should perhaps best be played down, the Court thus wrote its order of 16/12/2003. In that order the Court observed that the Chief Justice does not take a stock-taking from judges, the system was not structured that way, and during the pendency of a case discussion outside the Courtroom is not done, as that is not the system. But the court did say in its order "all cannot be spoken today and in this order. This matter needs much more reflection. What if this Court had to pass an order on the call which was received from the Chief Minister? Then this would start another vicious proceeding and a conflict which in the terms of the Hon'ble august House of the Legislature, may be seen as a breach of privilege. This Court is not about to do that.... .The Chief Minister also has much to think about. For today may not be appropriate to make a negative criticism of something she may herself be looking into. Calling up the Chief Justice will not solve the problem. This is not working inside the system; it could destroy the system........ . The Chief Justice is prepared to condone the incident in the same spirit as it was said.... . 'Father forgive them for they know not what they do.” 9. The issue is still alive. The fact that another contempt case had been filed (original Criminal Miscellaneous no. 2 of 2004: Awadesh Kr. Pandey Vs. State of Bihar), and this was consigned, will not help any among the functionaries of the Government. This case was consigned so as not to complicate the issue, and permit a bazaar-like proceedings, vested interest in politics not excluded, to take advantage of the situation and haul the Chief Minister up for contempt. Thus by good grace of the Court, this second case highlighting the issue of a phone call in a pending case, was rested. The Advocate General did not appear even in this case, where his Chief Minister was being hauled up on allegations of interfering with the Public Justice System. He neither acknowledged the gesture of the Court in consigning the proceedings. 10. The Advocate General did not appear even in this case, where his Chief Minister was being hauled up on allegations of interfering with the Public Justice System. He neither acknowledged the gesture of the Court in consigning the proceedings. 10. When the Court showed its good grace without examining the matter further, suffice it to say, it is upon having regard for Constitutional authorities, to give them due respect and acknowledgement of their position under the Constitution and the high office they hold. The Chief Minister is a Constitutional authority, which the High Court is obliged to acknowledge. In the structure of state polity, there is an old saying that the King does no wrong. In reality, it is not that a king, in fact, never does any wrong, this subtle nuance of protecting the head of the state, rests on a fiction which has come down as good prudence in accepting that if the king may have done wrong, it is his functionaries which do it. The structure of state polity is built on this understanding. But then it is accepted that all functionaries of the Constitution shall act within it, and not beyond it. The Court is not speaking the logic of the law, but nafasat of good governance. If it were the logic of the law, the phone-call-making Chief Minister and her consort would be answering before the Court. So far, they never had the opportunity by the grace of the Court, a crisis was averted. 11. The Court takes into account many ground realities, one of them is that our Chief Minister, a constitutional functionary, is a lady who is polite, a modest person of humility, perhaps embodying the culture of rural Bihar. 12. Politics surrounding her, politics itself, has nothing to do with the Court, as long as the Court is permitted to function and those outside keep within their Constitutional boundaries. But, if the Court had condoned the act of the Chief Minister on the theme that forgiveness is dignity, then those who are forgiven must bide their peace in humility. Their functionaries must not confuse forgiveness with licence to disregard the Court and its proper authority. If that happens, then the grace in forgiveness is abused. 13. The Advocate General, Bihar, is a functionary under the Chief Minister. Their functionaries must not confuse forgiveness with licence to disregard the Court and its proper authority. If that happens, then the grace in forgiveness is abused. 13. The Advocate General, Bihar, is a functionary under the Chief Minister. If he himself does not realise his constitutional position, then the Court cannot help him in his ignorance, which may be his bliss. With nigh ranking officials of the State, all functionaries under the Chief Minister, facing Contempt proceedings, the Advocate General cannot remain out of court. He must either prosecute them or defend them. In an all-too-frequent ugly practice that has been generated, not to answer notices issued to the Advocate General when it is obligatory for the High Court to issue it, the disrespect to the Court is complete. How can the State, the State as ody politic which is expected to function within the confines of the law and Constitution, expect high state functionaries to adhere to the Law, when the Advocate General himself will disregard it? How does the Advocate General expect a petty police official to honour the orders of the Court and run the rule of law, when he himself will disrespect first his own position at the High Court, and disrespect the High Court in its proceedings by not attending? Let this order be conveyed to the Hon'ble Chief Minister as the Court had indicated in its order of 16 December, 2003, "all cannot be spoken today and in this order. This matter needs much more reflection." The Court showed grace in that instance, but the Chief Minister's Advocate General shows no grace to the Court. He does not attend proceedings. This is disrespect. The Court never sought any expression of regret from the Chief Minister, but does that mean that her Advocate General will show disrespect to the Court in matters which concern her State. 14. It would be appropriate for the Advocate General to appear in cases when the Court desires his presence or issues notice to him. Otherwise, if the Chief Attorney of the State will show contempt to proceedings arising out of a public justice system, he will himself be in contempt, the Government will be dangerously close to showing contempt of High Court proceedings, through the Advocate General. 15. An absentee, non-functional Advocate General will send a wrong message and lesson to other State counsel who function under him. 15. An absentee, non-functional Advocate General will send a wrong message and lesson to other State counsel who function under him. Disrespect to the Court from a State Counsel will demolish the system. The sophistication of a Court system under Democracy is that the lowest Court of the land, must be shown the same exacting, courtesies as the highest Court. Not attending Court proceedings is belligerence. These matters may be taken up on Friday, and the Advocate General must appear in this, as in all other cases when his presence is required. 16. Put up these matters in Friday (9.7.2004) under the same heading.