SC to hear plea against termination of Telangana law officers appointed by BRS govt

New Delhi: The Supreme Court would on May 5 hear a plea against the termination of various state law officers after the Congress-led government came to power in Telangana.

The law officers, appointed by the previous Bharat Rashtra Samithi government to represent it at various judicial fora, challenging the Telangana High Court verdicts upholding their termination.

On April 17, a bench comprising Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Prashant Kumar Mishra took up the plea of Yendala Pradeep and others and fixed their plea for hearing after the counsel for the state government sought time to seek instruction from the requisite authorities.

“After hearing senior counsel for the petitioners, when called upon, counsel for the state submitted that in view of issues which have emerged during the course of arguments, she would be required to take fresh instructions, specifically on such issues,” the bench said while deferring the hearing.

Pradeep and others are contesting a government order issued in June 2024 by the newly-elected Congress-led government, which discontinued the services of various law officers appointed by the previous BRS government.

Following the legislative assembly elections held in November 2023, the new administration acted to replace these officers, prompting a legal battle over the legitimacy of their termination.

The petitioners, who earlier approached the Telangana High Court, had argued that the change in political leadership does not alter the constitutional identity of the state government.

They contended that their appointments could not be summarily terminated purely due to a political transition and sought reinstatement along with all consequential benefits.

However, both the single-judge and the division bench of the high court dismissed their challenge.

The high court emphasised that law officers were appointed at the discretion of the government and must enjoy its trust and confidence.

Their engagement, it said, was contractual—not governed by an employer-employee relationship—and their services could be legally terminated with a month’s notice or honorarium.

The high court also noted that the appointments were not made through a formal selection process and reiterated that the government retained the right to choose its legal representatives.