<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1990 (9) TMI 323 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156718</link>
    <description>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&#039;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.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Sep 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 Dec 2025 16:01:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=173744" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (9) TMI 323 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156718</link>
      <description>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&#039;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.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Sep 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156718</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>