Allahabad High Court criticises the “entitlement culture” in State corporation lawyer appointments, saying influential candidates are favoured while competent first-generation lawyers are ignored, urging merit-based and transparent selection processes.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
UTTAR PRADESH: The Allahabad High Court has criticised the prevailing “entitlement culture” in the appointment of lawyers to panels of State corporations, where only scions of influential families are given opportunities, sidelining competent first-generation advocates.
The Case Background
The petition arose from an instance of professional negligence at the labour court, which ultimately prejudiced the rights of the petitioners, the family of a deceased UPSRTC driver. The Court found that erroneous submissions by the corporation’s counsel had led to wrongful closure of proceedings, prompting the Court to examine the broader issue of how such counsel are appointed.
Court’s Concerns
Justice Ajay Bhanot noted that despite possessing competence, integrity, and industry, first-generation lawyers without political connections or powerful family backgrounds are consistently overlooked when State corporations select counsel.
ALSO READ: Young Lawyer Collapses in Bombay High Court After Judge’s Harsh Scolding Sparks Debate
The Court observed,
“Modes of appointment of counsels which accord weight to accidents of inheritance and neglect achievements of merit cannot be countenanced in State Corporations.”
Citing the Supreme Court’s precedent in Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P. (1991), the judge stressed that appointments must be made through transparent and fair procedures.
According to the Court, the “spoils system”, where influence, not merit, decides appointments, has degraded professional representation of State corporations. Often, lawyers appointed under this system either fail to appear in court or delegate cases to others without accountability.
The judgment recalled similar concerns raised in Gaurav Jain v. State of U.P. (2021), where it was found that many panel counsel for government bodies were sending juniors instead of appearing themselves, undermining case management.
Justice Bhanot warned that this entrenched entitlement culture weakens the justice delivery system,
“Such an environment prevents members of the Bar from developing and contributing to the rule of law… The justice delivery system becomes weak and unable to serve justice to the common citizens due to systemic deficiencies.”
The Court emphasised that State authorities have a responsibility to uphold fairness in counsel appointments. It suggested that officials should discreetly observe court proceedings to assess competence and integrity before empanelling lawyers, supported by rigorous checks and balances.
In the present case, UPSRTC’s Managing Director assured the Court that steps would be taken to open opportunities to meritorious young lawyers, including first-generation advocates.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court: “Lawyers Not Above Law, Phone Calls Can Be Evidence in Criminal Cases”
The Court directed that a meeting of the UPSRTC Board be held before the next hearing on September 22, 2025, to finalise a transparent appointment scheme.
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocate Yogesh Kumar Vaish
Respondents: Advocates Sheo Ram Singh and Sunil Kumar Misra
Case Title:
Smt. Jubeda Begum and Another vs UP State Road Transport and Another
WRIT – C No. – 12610 of 2025
READ ORDER HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on CJI BR Gavai
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Ex-CJI Chandrachud
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
