‘Lawyers not servants’: Rajasthan High Court quashes JDA’s mass removal of advocates in a landmark ruling

In a sharp assertion of professional dignity, the court made a significant observation that the lawyers have some dignity. (Image enhanced using AI)

The court was examining whether the termination orders dated November 14, 2025, violated the terms of engagement and principles of natural justice, particularly when the appointments were governed by specific conditions regarding performance-based removal.

‘Lawyers cannot be treated like servants’

• In a sharp assertion of professional dignity, the court made a significant observation that the lawyers have some dignity.
• The court said that the lawyers cannot be treated like servants.
• Their engagement or disengagement has to be as per the reasonable terms and conditions.
• The dignity of a lawyer cannot be put to compromise.

• The court emphasised that even contractual engagements involving legal professionals carry a public element and must meet the standards of fairness under Article 14 of the Constitution.
• The respondents authorities cannot be allowed to engage or disengage a lawyer for a legal work at their whims.
• The engagement or disengagement has to be in accordance with some procedure and terms and conditions.

Court finds action ‘arbitrary’

• The high court found that the JDA failed to demonstrate any dissatisfaction with the petitioners’ performance.
• On the contrary, records indicated that their work had been certified as “qualitative and satisfactory.”
• The court noted that the termination appeared to have been carried out under external directions, without any justifiable reason, making it arbitrary and violative of the governing terms.

• The court observed that state authorities must act fairly and cannot disregard their own conditions of engagement, particularly when no adverse material exists against the affected individuals.
• In the present case, the respondents neglected the terms and conditions incorporated by them in the orders issued by them, the court said.
• The act of disengagement or cancellation of the engagement of the petitioners from being assistant advocates, is held to be an arbitrary act of the respondents and that deserves to be quashed and set aside, it added.

Background: Role of assistant advocates

• The assistant advocates were engaged by the JDA under various administrative orders issued since September 11, 2009, to coordinate between officers and panel counsel and ensure timely filing of replies in court matters.
• Despite the contractual nature of their engagement, the terms clearly provided that removal could only be effected if their performance was found unsatisfactory based on official reports.

Directions

• The court directed the JDA to frame a comprehensive policy/ guidelines / instructions as regards the eligibility, tenure and procedure regarding engagement and removal / disengagement for assistant advocates.
• The court allowed the petitioners to continue as assistant advocates till their work is found to be qualitative and satisfactory or any such policy/ guidelines/ instructions are framed and fresh engagements are made as per such policy.

• The court directed the JDA to incorporate provision in the policy/guidelines/ instructions so that while engaging the assistant advocates and also panel advocates, the representation of women lawyers and lawyers from scheduled caste/ tribe, backward classes and weaker sections of the society can be ensured.
• The high court said that the remuneration is being paid from public exchequer and the JDA is an instrumentality of the government of Rajasthan.

Reliance on Supreme Court precedents

• The judgment drew heavily from the Supreme Court’s ruling in Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi vs State of Uttar Pradesh (1991), which held that appointments of government counsel are not purely private contractual matters and are subject to constitutional scrutiny.
• Reiterating this principle, the high court observed that even if such engagements are contractual, they cannot be terminated arbitrarily or for extraneous reasons.

No tenure, yet no free hand to remove

• The court noted that although no fixed tenure was prescribed for assistant advocates, the absence of tenure did not grant the authority unfettered discretion to remove them.
• Instead, the authority was bound by its own conditions which permitted removal only in cases of unsatisfactory performance, misconduct, or actions detrimental to its interests none of which were established in the present case.