STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. versus BRIJESHWAR SINGH CHAHAL & ANR.

Citation: [2016] 4 S.C.R. 685 · Decided: 30-03-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 4 S.C.R. 685 
STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. 
v. 
BRIJESHWAR SINGH CHAHAL & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 3194 of2016) 
MARCH 30, 2016 
[T.S. THAKUR, CJI AND KURIAN JOSEPH, J.] 
Advocates - Law Officers - Appointment of - By the State 
Government - Whether the appointment of Law Officers can be 
questioned or the process, by which such appointments are made, 
can be assailed on the ground of being arbitrary and hence violative 
of Art. 14 of the Constitution - Held: The Government as well as 
the public bodies are trustees of the power vested in them and 
custodians of public interest - Therefore, the nature of their functions 
and duties (including the power to engage, employ or recruit 
servants, agents, advisors and representatives) must be exercised 
in a fair, reasonable, non-discriminatory and objective manner -
Duty to act fairly is a facet of law and Art. 14 of the Constitution is 
intolerant towards arbitrariness - The States in discharge of their 
public duty and power to select and appoint State Counsel, cannot 
disregard either the guarantee contained in Art.14 or the duty to 
protect public interest by picking up the best, nor can the States 
frustrate, delay or negate the judicial process of administration of 
;ustice which heavily banks upon the assistance rendered by the 
Bar - The States (States of Punjab and Haryana) in the present 
case have neither made any realistic assessment of their requirement, 
before making appointment of law Officers, nor haw: formulated 
any scheme, policy, ,.urms or standards for appointing such officers 
- There should bP a check on the appointment of State Counsel 
especially in situwions where the appointment is unregulated by 
any constitutional or statutory provision - The States of Punjab 
and Haryana are directed (1) To undertake a realistic assessment 
of their need; (2) Based on the assessment so made, constitute a 
Selection Committee; (3) The Committee on the basis of norms and 
criteria (formulated by the Government or the Committee) conduct 
selection of Law Officers and submit a panel of names to the Chief 
Justice of High Court; (4) The Chief Justice to set up a Committee 
of Judges to review the panel and make recommendations; (5) The 
685 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
686 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 4 S.C.R. 
A 
Chief Justice to record his views regarding the suitability of the 
recommended candidate - Clarified that the present judgment will 
not effect appointment of Advocate General in terms of Art. 165 of 
the Constitution - Constitution of India - Art. 14. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Disposing of the appeal and the petition, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 For a fair and objective system of appointment, 
there ought to be a fair and realistic assessment of the 
requirement, for otherwise the appointments may be made not 
because they are required but because they come handy for 
political aggrandisement, appeasement or personal benevolence 
of those in power towards those appointed. The dangers of such 
an uncanalised & unregulated system of appointment are multi-
dimensional resulting in erosion of the rule of law, public faith in 
the fairness of the system and injury to public interest and 
administration of justice. [Para 9] [700-C-D] 
1.2 No such assessment has been made nor any material 
disclosed by the State Governments to demonstrate that they 
were sensitive to the need for any such assessment. Power to 
appoint Law Officers was all the same exercised on a totally tu! 
hoc basis without any co-relation between the work load in the 
Courts and the number of Law Officers appointed to handle the 
same. If the power to appoint is exercised not because such 
exercise is called for but because of some extraneous or other 
reason, the legitimacy of the exercise will itself become 
questionable. [Para 8] [696-G-II; 697-A-B) 
2.1 When the appointments are made to offices heavily 
remunerated from the public exchequer, the same cannot or ought 
not to remain unregulated. That is particularly so when those 
appointed arc expected by the very nature of their appointment 
to discharge important public function affecting not only State 
interest but the quality of justice which the courts administer. 
[Para 15] [704-D-E) 
2.2 In the case of Punjab and Haryana, there is not even a 
semblance of any selection process in the matter of appointment 
of those chosen for the job leave alone a process that is credible 
in terms of its fairness and objectivity. The practice of making 
ap

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.