PIL in Delhi High Court Seeks To Quash Recent Empanelment of Over 650 Govt. Lawyers as Panel Counsel
The empanelment list was published on 21 November 2025.
A public interest litigation (PIL), filed by the First Generation Lawyers Association (FGLA), has challenged the appointment of more than 650 lawyers by the Ministry of Law and Justice as panel counsel to represent the Union of India before the Supreme Court of India.
The petition contended that the empanelment list published on 21 November 2025 includes advocates who are ineligible including some who enrolled only in 2024 or 2025 and, in certain cases, have not even cleared the All India Bar Examination (AIBE), which is mandatory for legal practice in India.
As per the PIL, the inclusion of such inexperienced or uncertified lawyers especially in matters involving significant public interest, constitutional questions, or national policy raises “serious concerns” about lack of transparency, arbitrariness, and breach of standards of fairness.
On 3 December 2025, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya (Chief Justice) and Tushar Rao Gedela heard the case. The Bench directed the Government's representative, Chetan Sharma (Additional Solicitor General, ASG), to obtain instructions from the Centre and placed the matter for further hearing on 11 December.
During the hearing, the Bench questioned whether there were lawyers on the list with just a year or even a few months of practice, and whether the Government applied any minimum-experience criteria.
The petitioner stated that the Government did not disclose the criteria used for empanelment whether applications were invited, how candidates were evaluated, or how categories were assigned.
The petitioner submitted that many of the empanelled advocates are newly enrolled (2024 or 2025) and some have not passed the AIBE and stated that there was no clarity or document publicly available showing what eligibility criteria (experience, case-handling exposure, domain knowledge) were used.
The petitioner argued that the counsel representing the Union in Supreme Court matters often involving public funds, statutory interpretation, and national policy, therefore adequately experienced and qualified lawyers should be appointed.
The petitioner further submitted that arbitrary empanelment without transparent criteria or due deliberation potentially violates the principle of equality and fairness under Article 14 of the Constitution.
At the hearing, the Government’s counsel contended that the decision to empanel lawyers is discretionary, arguing the government has the right to choose its counsels.
However, the court asked for a clarification on how counsel were selected, particularly whether there was any minimum bar on experience or AIBE qualification and asked the ASG to procure instructions.
The controversy is not just limited to AIBE-qualification. As per independent commentary on the empanelment, the inclusion of such a large number of inexperienced lawyers alongside what appears to be an absence of clear and transparent criteria has come under serious scrutiny in legal circles. The appointments have raised questions over the competence and readiness of many of those lawyers to handle matters of high public importance before the Supreme Court.
The matter has been posted for hearing on 11 December 2025, when the Court expects the Centre to provide a detailed response on the selection process and explain the empanelment decisions, including the presence of advocates lacking AIBE or minimal experience.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
