KUMARI SHRILEKHA VIDYARTHI ETC. ETC versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

KUMARI SHRILEKHA VIDYARTHI ETC. ETC versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

The impugned circular terminating all Government Counsel appointments in Uttar Pradesh districts was arbitrary, issued without individual application of mind, and violated Article 14. State action—even in contractual matters—must be fair and reasonable; arbitrariness is forbidden even where State acts as a...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Petitioner/appellant: Km. Shrilekha Vidyarthi; Respondent: State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
20 September 1990
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition Under Article 32 and Special Leave Petition Under Article 136 / Final Decision on Merits After Hearing Appeals and Writ Petitions Together
Outcome
Appeals and writ petitions allowed. Impugned circular quashed. Status quo ante as on 28.2.1990 restored. No costs.
Legal Topics
State Action, Article 14, Arbitrariness, Judicial Review, Government Counsel Appointments
Constitutional Law Administrative Law State Action Article 14 Arbitrariness Judicial Review Government Counsel Appointments

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Km. Shrilekha Vidyarthi

Petitioner/appellant

State of Uttar Pradesh and Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition Under Article 32 and Special Leave Petition Under Article 136 / Final Decision on Merits After Hearing Appeals and Writ Petitions Together

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is the impugned circular terminating all Government Counsel in U.P. districts arbitrary and violative of Article 14?
  2. 2 Is State contractual activity amenable to judicial review under Article 14?

Ratio Decidendi

The impugned circular terminating all Government Counsel appointments in Uttar Pradesh districts was arbitrary, issued without individual application of mind, and violated Article 14. State action—even in contractual matters—must be fair and reasonable; arbitrariness is forbidden even where State acts as a contracting party. The circular cannot survive judicial scrutiny and is quashed.

Court Disposition

Appeals and writ petitions allowed. Impugned circular quashed. Status quo ante as on 28.2.1990 restored. No costs.

Orders

  • Impugned circular G.O. No. D-284-Seven-Law-Ministry dated 6.2.1990 quashed.
  • Status quo ante as on 28.2.1990 restored; all Government Counsel in position as of that date continue in office.