Correct answer: (a) Only 1
Explanation
- A
Only 1
Option (a) states that only statement 1 is correct. This option correctly identifies that under Article 76 of the Constitution, the Attorney General of India must be a person qualified to be appointed as a Judge of the Supreme Court, while statement 2 is incorrect because the Attorney General does not enjoy fixed tenure and holds office during the pleasure of the President.
- B
Only 2
Option (b) claims that only statement 2 is correct. This option is incorrect because the Attorney General cannot be removed through the same specialized impeachment process as Supreme Court Judges, unlike what is claimed in the second statement.
- C
Both 1 and 2
Option (c) asserts that both statements 1 and 2 are correct. This option is invalid because while the first statement accurately reflects the constitutional qualification criteria, the second statement erroneously equates the removal procedure of the Attorney General with that of Supreme Court judges.
- D
Neither 1 nor 2
Option (d) suggests that neither statement 1 nor 2 is correct. This option is wrong because the first statement is entirely accurate according to constitutional provisions governing the highest law officer of the country.
Summary. Official key is (a) Only 1. Statement 1 is correct as the Constitution mandates that a person to be appointed as Attorney General must possess the qualifications required for a Supreme Court judge. Statement 2 is incorrect because the Attorney General holds office during the pleasure of the President and can be removed by the President at any time, unlike Supreme Court judges who have a complex removal process. Candidates often confuse the tenure security of constitutional functionaries with that of the Attorney General. Therefore, only the first statement holds true among the given choices.