Article 14 review applies to State counsel appointments; arbitrary blanket termination and fresh panel directive were struck down.

State action governing appointment and termination of district Government Counsel is subject to Article 14 review because the engagement is regulated by the Legal Remembrancer's Manual and involves objective selection, consultation, renewal criteria and controlled termination. A circular that ended all existing appointments and required fresh panels was arbitrary because it imposed an omnibus termination without individual assessment, discernible reason or compliance with the prescribed renewal procedure. The SC held that such non-arbitrary standards apply even in contractual State engagements, so the circular was unconstitutional and liable to be struck down.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the impugned State circular governing appointment and termination of district Government Counsel was amenable to judicial review under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (ii) Whether the circular terminating all existing appointments and directing fresh panels was arbitrary and liable to be quashed as violative of Article 14.

Issue (i): Whether the impugned State circular governing appointment and termination of district Government Counsel was amenable to judicial review under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The appointments of district Government Counsel were governed by the Legal Remembrancer's Manual and, in the case of public prosecutors, by Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The scheme contemplated selection on objective criteria, consultation with the District Judge, renewal on assessment of work, conduct and age, maintenance of character rolls, and regulated termination. These features showed that the engagement was not a purely private contractual arrangement but carried a public element and involved holders of public office. Even apart from that, State action in contractual matters remains subject to the requirement of non-arbitrariness under Article 14.

Conclusion: The impugned circular was amenable to judicial review.

Issue (ii): Whether the circular terminating all existing appointments and directing fresh panels was arbitrary and liable to be quashed as violative of Article 14.

Analysis: The circular effected an omnibus termination of all district Government Counsel across the State without any discernible principle, without individual assessment of suitability, and without following the prescribed renewal procedure in the Legal Remembrancer's Manual. The State did not disclose a concrete or reasonable basis for replacing even those whose tenure had not expired, and the explanation given was found too vague to justify such sweeping action. Since State action must be informed by reason and free from whim, caprice or non-application of mind, the circular failed the test of fairness and reasonableness under Article 14.

Conclusion: The circular was arbitrary and unconstitutional and liable to be struck down.

Final Conclusion: The challenge succeeded, the State directive was invalidated, and the existing appointments were required to be dealt with under the prescribed renewal and termination procedure, with the prior position restored.

Ratio Decidendi: All State action, including in contractual engagements, is subject to Article 14 and may be struck down if it is arbitrary, unreasonable, or unsupported by discernible and fair criteria.

---