Judicial Cognizance: PIL in Delhi HC Challenges 650 Govt Counsel Appointments Over AIBE Status
(Judicial Quest News Network)
New Delhi, December 3, 2025: The Delhi High Court on Wednesday sought the Union Government’s stance on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the empanelment of more than 650 advocates as panel counsel to represent the Union of India before the Supreme Court.
“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. “The plea said.
The petition, filed by the First-Generation Lawyers Association, alleges that several of the appointed lawyers have yet to clear the All-India Bar Examination (AIBE), a mandatory requirement to practice law in India.
“It is further submitted that the Government, being the largest litigant, bears an obligation to ensure that cases involving public interest, revenue, national policy, and statutory interpretation are handled by Counsel with adequate experience and expertise. However, the present panel includes several advocates who, based on publicly available enrolment data, appear to have been enrolled only in 2024 or 2025, and thus have less than a year or, in some cases, only a few months at the Bar. This raises serious concerns about whether the empanelment process has adequately considered essential factors such as minimum standing, court experience, knowledge of procedure, or the ability to handle complex constitutional matters.”
A Division Bench comprising Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela said the matter will be heard on December 11. The court directed Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Chetan Sharma to take instructions from the Centre in the case.
The PIL claims that the list of panel counsel issued by the Ministry of Law and Justice on November 21 has triggered “serious concerns” within the legal fraternity over alleged irregularities, lack of transparency, and the inclusion of newly enrolled advocates. It further points out that several lawyers named in the panel were enrolled with State Bar Councils only in 2024 or even 2025, and some are yet to clear the AIBE.
The Association argued that appointing inexperienced lawyers to represent the Union of India in matters involving constitutional interpretation and national policy undermines constitutional principles of fairness, equality of opportunity, and accountability under Article 14 of the Constitution. The petition also questioned the criteria for empanelment and whether any minimum experience requirement was applied.
Appearing for the government, Central Government Standing Counsel (CGSC) Radhika Dubey contended that the PIL was not maintainable, asserting that the government has complete discretion in deciding who will represent it. She added that ASG Sharma would represent the Centre in the proceedings.
The petitioners were represented by advocates Rudra Vikram Singh, Ashirvad Kumar Yadav, Neetu Rani, Rashmi Mehta, and Anirudh Tyagi.
