Delhi HC Seeks Centre’s Stand on PIL Alleging Arbitrary Appointment of 650 Lawyers As Central Government Counsel
From The Editor's Desk
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday asked the Central government to clarify its position on a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the recent empanelment of over 650 lawyers as Panel Counsel to represent the Union of India before the Supreme Court.
The PIL, filed by the First Generation Lawyers’ Association, claims that several advocates included in the panel have not yet cleared the All India Bar Examination (AIBE), which is mandatory for practising law in India.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela scheduled the matter for hearing on December 11 and requested Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Chetan Sharma to seek instructions from the government. "List it next week on Thursday to enable the ASG to obtain instructions," the Court directed.
The petition takes exception to the Ministry of Law & Justice notification dated November 21, alleging that it has triggered “serious concerns” in the legal fraternity about irregularities, a lack of transparency, and the inclusion of newly enrolled advocates in the panel.
According to the plea, a number of lawyers named in the panel were enrolled with State Bar Councils only in 2024 or even 2025, and some of them have yet to pass the AIBE. The Association contends that appointing such relatively inexperienced counsel to appear for the Union of India before the Supreme Court, particularly in constitutional and policy-related matters, violates Article 14 of the Constitution by undermining fairness, equal opportunity and accountability.
The petition further states: "It is submitted that various past guidelines and established practices require a minimum number of years of practice before an advocate is eligible for government panels. However, the inclusion of advocates with less than one or two years of practice, and in some cases without confirmation of AIBE qualification, prima facie indicates arbitrary exercise of power by the concerned authorities. Moreover, such arbitrariness has a direct bearing on public interest, as government litigation involves public funds and decisions affecting millions of citizens."
It is also argued that the position of Central Government Counsel is a public office demanding high levels of competence and substantial courtroom experience. Yet, the notification empanelling counsel does not spell out eligibility conditions, the process of inviting and scrutinising applications, or the basis on which advocates were categorised for different panels carrying distinct responsibilities.
During the forenoon hearing, advocate Rudra Vikram Singh, appearing for the petitioner-association, reiterated that some of the empanelled advocates had registered with Bar Councils only in 2024 and 2025 and had not cleared the AIBE. The Bench then sought a response from the government.
"Is it correct that there are advocates who have just a year of practice? Have they been empanelled for the Supreme Court?" the Court queried, also asking the government to clarify the criteria for empanelment and whether any minimum experience requirement is prescribed.
Central Government Standing Counsel (CGSC) Radhika Bishwajit Dubey, representing the Union, responded that the PIL itself was not maintainable and asserted that the choice of counsel was a matter of executive prerogative. "It is the discretion of the government to decide who stays on the panel," Dubey submitted, adding that ASG Sharma would appear for the government in the matter, following which the Bench passed over the case to be taken up later in the day.
When the matter was called again in the afternoon, ASG Sharma informed the Court that he would examine whether any advocates who have not yet cleared the AIBE had in fact been empanelled. The Bench then adjourned the case for further hearing on December 11.
The petitioner-association was represented by advocates Rudra Vikram Singh, Ashirvad Kumar Yadav, Neetu Rani, Rashmi Mehta and Anirudh Tyagi. Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, along with CGSC Radhika Bishwajit Dubey, appeared for the Union of India.
Case Title: Title: First Generation Lawyers Association (FGLA) v. Union of India & Or
