<?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>2015 (11) TMI 1795 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284747</link>
    <description>Renewal and appointment of District Government Counsel remain matters of governmental discretion under the governing criminal procedure and manual framework, subject to fairness, prescribed procedure, and limited judicial review for illegality or arbitrariness. An incumbent counsel has no vested or enforceable right to renewal merely because of prior engagement, so a court cannot treat renewal as an entitlement or substitute its own assessment for the State&#039;s decision on suitability and trust. The earlier authoritative ruling on this subject was binding, and a contrary approach could not be sustained. The appeals succeeded, the impugned judgment was set aside, and the State was left free to make fresh appointments in accordance with law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 Sep 2023 10:25:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=596623" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (11) TMI 1795 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284747</link>
      <description>Renewal and appointment of District Government Counsel remain matters of governmental discretion under the governing criminal procedure and manual framework, subject to fairness, prescribed procedure, and limited judicial review for illegality or arbitrariness. An incumbent counsel has no vested or enforceable right to renewal merely because of prior engagement, so a court cannot treat renewal as an entitlement or substitute its own assessment for the State&#039;s decision on suitability and trust. The earlier authoritative ruling on this subject was binding, and a contrary approach could not be sustained. The appeals succeeded, the impugned judgment was set aside, and the State was left free to make fresh appointments in accordance with law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284747</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>