1990 (9) TMI 323 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Quashes UP Govt Circular, Emphasizes Article 14 Compliance in Contractual Matters

KUMARI SHRILEKHA VIDYARTHI ETC. ETC. Versus STATE OF UP. AND ORS.

The Supreme Court quashed the impugned circular issued by the Government of Uttar Pradesh, restoring the status quo ante. The judgment emphasized the need ... Validity of the Circular G.O. No. D284-Seven Law-Ministry dated 6.2.1990 issued by the Government of State of Uttar Pradesh terminating all the existing appointments w.e.f. 28.2. 1990, questioned Held that:- The impugned circular dated 6.2.90 is arbitrary. It terminates all the appointments of Government Counsel in the districts of the State of Uttar Pradesh by an omnibus order, even though these appointments were all individual. No common reason applicable to all of them justifying their termination in one stroke on a reasonable ground has been shown. The submission on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh at the hearing that many of them were likely to be re-appointed is by itself ample proof of the fact that there was total non-application of mind to the individual cases before issuing the general order terminating all the appointments. Appeals and writ petitions are allowed. The impugned circular G.O. No. D-284-Seven-Law-ministry dated 6.2. 1990, issued by the Government of State of U.P., is quashed resulting in restoration of status quo ante as on 28.2. 1990, the date from which this circular was made effective. Issues Involved:1. Judicial Review of the Impugned Circular2. Arbitrariness and Violation of Article 143. Nature of Appointments of Government Counsel4. Applicability of Article 14 to State Actions in Contractual MattersDetailed Analysis:1. Judicial Review of the Impugned Circular:The primary issue was whether the impugned circular issued by the Government of Uttar Pradesh terminating the appointments of all Government Counsel in the districts was amenable to judicial review. The judgment established that the impugned circular is subject to judicial review, emphasizing that all State actions must be fair, reasonable, and non-arbitrary to survive under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.2. Arbitrariness and Violation of Article 14:The judgment scrutinized the circular for arbitrariness, a key aspect under Article 14. The court found the circular arbitrary as it terminated all appointments en masse without discernible reasons or adherence to prescribed procedures. The court stated, 'Arbitrariness is the very negation of the rule of law.' The circular was quashed for failing to provide a reasonable basis for such sweeping action and for not following the established process for renewal or termination of appointments as laid out in the Legal Remembrancer's Manual.3. Nature of Appointments of Government Counsel:The nature of the appointments of Government Counsel was debated, with the State claiming these were purely contractual engagements terminable at will. The court, however, emphasized the public element in these appointments, noting that Government Counsel hold a public office with duties extending beyond a mere client-counsel relationship. The judgment highlighted that 'appointment of public prosecutors has a statutory status' and that the role involves public duties, making the appointments subject to public law principles.4. Applicability of Article 14 to State Actions in Contractual Matters:The judgment extended the applicability of Article 14 to State actions in contractual matters, asserting that the State cannot act arbitrarily even in the sphere of contracts. The court stated, 'The State cannot be attributed the sprit personality of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde in the contractual field,' emphasizing that State actions must always be fair, just, and reasonable. The judgment reinforced that every State action, including contractual matters, must meet the test of non-arbitrariness under Article 14.Conclusion:The Supreme Court quashed the impugned circular dated 6.2.1990 issued by the Government of Uttar Pradesh, restoring the status quo ante as on 28.2.1990. The judgment underscored the requirement for all State actions to be non-arbitrary and guided by reason, reaffirming the applicability of Article 14 to all executive actions, including those in the contractual domain. The court directed that the existing Government Counsel should continue in office and be dealt with according to the procedure laid down in the Legal Remembrancer's Manual.