Court Rules Termination Valid Without Proof of Malafide; Advocates Expected to Maintain Dignity Without Resorting to Litigation
In a significant judgment delivered on August 24, 2026, the Jharkhand High Court, presided over by Mr. Justice Deepak Roshan, dismissed the writ petition filed by Shiva Kant Srivastava challenging the termination of his appointment as a public prosecutor by the Union of India and others. The Court held that the termination, carried out in accordance with the government notification dated January 30, 1997, was valid and did not violate any constitutional provisions, including Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to equality.
The petitioner, Shiva Kant Srivastava, contended that his termination by the respondents was arbitrary, discriminatory, and malafide. He argued that prior to the termination order dated July 8, 2026, no opportunity of hearing was provided to him, and that other counsels engaged alongside him continued in their roles, indicating discriminatory treatment. The petitioner also relied on a 2013 letter that purportedly required court permission for any change in counsel for animal husbandry cases, and cited the Supreme Court judgment in Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi and Ors. v. State of U.P., asserting that such termination violated principles of natural justice and Article 14.
Responding to these claims, the Union of India, through its counsel, submitted that the termination was effected strictly in accordance with the terms of the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions notification dated January 30, 1997, which expressly allowed termination of counsel appointments on one month’s written notice. The counsel contended that the State is not bound to continue the services of any particular advocate and that judicial interference in such matters under Article 226 of the Constitution is limited.
Upon consideration, the Court found that the respondents had complied with the prescribed procedure, including giving a clear one-month notice for termination. The Court observed that the 2013 letter concerning transfers of counsel did not apply as the trials related to the animal husbandry scam had concluded. Moreover, the Court distinguished the petitioner’s case from the Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi judgment, which pertained to an en bloc termination of all government advocates, whereas the current case involved termination of a single counsel within the bounds of contractual terms.
Regarding the petitioner’s allegations of malafide conduct, the Court held that such claims require concrete evidence and cannot rest solely on pleadings. Since the petitioner failed to provide any cogent material or implead the concerned officer against whom malafide was alleged, the Court found no ground to invalidate the termination on this basis.
The Court also reiterated the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh vs Rakesh Kumar Kesari, AIR 2011 SC 1705, affirming that the State has discretion in selecting its counsel and cannot be compelled to continue the services of a particular advocate through writ jurisdiction. Additionally, the Court referenced the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling in Mundrika Prasad Singh vs State of Bihar, which emphasized dignified conduct by advocates upon termination of government appointments, discouraging resort to litigation in such matters.
In conclusion, the Jharkhand High Court dismissed the petition, affirming the validity of the termination order and underscoring the limited scope of judicial review in contractual engagements of public prosecutors. The Court also called for advocates to uphold the dignity of their profession and refrain from unnecessary litigation in similar circumstances.
Bottom Line:
Termination of a public prosecutor's appointment under terms of engagement governed by a government notification is valid if done in compliance with the prescribed procedure, and allegations of mala fide must be substantiated with concrete proof.
Statutory provision(s):
Article 14, Article 226 of the Constitution of India; Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions Notification dated 30.01.1997
Shiva Kant Srivastava @ S.K. Srivastava v. Union of India, (Jharkhand) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2970009
