Karnataka High Court Quashes Overnight Removal Of Govt Pleader; Says 'Doctrine Of Pleasure' Not A Licence For Arbitrary Action

The Karnataka High Court has set aside a notification cancelling the appointment of an Additional District Government Pleader within 24-hours of his appointment and appointing another advocate in his place.

A single judge, Justice M Nagaprasanna said,

“The appointment made is on one day, and undone the next day, within a span of just 24 hours. The petitioner so appointed, as Government Pleader, assumed charge, appeared in the Court and was abruptly removed without reason and the 3rd respondent was appointed, all in 24 hours. Perhaps, this is the first case in the annals of judicial review of such gross arbitrary exercise of power; in 24 hours the State changes its own orders, to its whim.”

It added “The State must remember that, Article 14 of the Constitution of India is that golden thread that is woven through the entire fabric of the Constitution of India and every bead of the State action should pass through that golden thread, any action of the State cannot be arbitrary.”

The court said thus while allowing a petition filed by Advocate Sunil Sank, who had approached the court after his appointment to the Office of the Additional District Government Pleader, at XI Additional District and Session Court, Belagavi, Sitting at Athani, District Belagavi was cancelled by issuance of a notification dated 29-10-2025, by the Department of Law, in his place Advocate D.B Thankkannavar came to be appointed.

The petitioner argued that the impugned action is on the face of it arbitrary and has to be annulled. The appointment of the petitioner had come about in accordance with law. It cannot be taken away illegally by the impugned Notification. The only proceeding drawn was on the date on which the petitioner was appointed and the change of appointment was due to the tippani of the Minister.

The State government opposed the plea submitting that there is a distinction between appointment under Rules 26 and 28 of the Karnataka Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1977. The appointment of the Government Pleader is at the pleasure of the State as, at any time, it can be withdrawn. No right of the petitioner is taken away by the withdrawal of his appointment, since admittedly it is at the pleasure of the State.

The bench on going through the records noted that while it is true that the appointments under Rule 26 are made at the pleasure of the Government, such pleasure is not unfettered, it is hemmed in by the golden thread of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which sternly prohibits arbitrariness.

Stating that the appointment of the petitioner is not a nomination but an appointment under the Rules, the Court said, "Though the appointment would indicate that it is for a period of three years or until further orders, it would not mean that the State can act arbitrarily."

It added, “The arbitrariness is so palpable and demonstrable in the case at hand, the appointment of the petitioner which cannot be termed to be illegal by any means or contrary to the statute, is taken away by a stroke of pen, not in a month, or a year, but within 24 hours. If this cannot be termed to be an arbitrary action, on the part of the State, I fail to understand what else can be.”

The court also said that respondent no 3's submission that his application earlier submitted is contrary to the record.

Emphasising that the appointment made after due process, was extinguished the very next day, not for administrative exigency, not for legal infirmity, but solely on account of a sudden change of mind, resting on a "tippani" from the Minister, the court said, “If such caprice is permitted judicial shelter, then the doctrine of pleasure would transmute into an instrument of unbridled executive whim, reducing the Constitutional safeguards to a rhetoric. This Court, cannot be a mute spectator to such executive freewheeling. Judicial intervention becomes not merely appropriate, but imperative in such cases.”

Allowing the petition the court said “Notification dated 29-10-2025 appointing the 3rd respondent as Additional District Government Pleader is obliterated and the appointment of the petitioner as such in terms of the order dated 28-10-2025 is restored.”

Appearance: Advocate Prashant S Kadadevar for Petitioner.

AAG Gangadhar J M /aw AGA Girija S Hiremath FOR R1 AND R2.

Advocate Girish A Yadawad for R3.

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 402

Case Title: Sunil AND State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.108099 OF 2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order