Thus the AG’s office can inspire pride when it affirms independence and standards and earn rebuke when in falls in stature and respect. Many years ago, on 29 January 1951, Lord Shawcross described the role of the AG as follows: “I do not think he is obliged to consult with any of his colleagues in government, and... he would be a fool in some cases if he did not... If political considerations in the broad sense... affect government in the abstract sense, it is the attorney general, applying his judicial mind, who has to be sole judge of the circumstances”. Independence from government is a critical factor.

Hence the AG is both a lawyer to the Government and a public functionary. Can he hide behind the principle of confidentiality? Arguably, each time the AG writes an opinion he must be conscious that he does so in the public (and not the government’s) interest. An invisible ‘public’ is looking over his shoulder and reading every word. He can be summoned to parliament, but he can address them to explain his stance. When the government cites the AG’s opinion as a defence or explanation, the opinion and entire paper should be made public. In England, AG Goldsmith’s opinion on Iraq was available to the public and legal experts, and torn apart in public discussion. In the present controversy, Law Minister Bharadwaj declared that the decision on the Red Corner notice was made by the AG. This is startling. Except when in court, in his own name, the AG makes no decisions. Red Corner Notices are between the government and the wing of the CBI dealing with Interpol and with the Law and Home Ministries.

... contd.