A PIL in the Delhi High Court challenges the Centre’s appointment of over 650 advocates as government counsel, alleging many have not cleared the mandatory AIBE. The Court has asked the Centre to clarify the selection criteria before the next hearing on December 11.
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday asked the Central government to explain its stand on a public interest litigation (PIL) filed against the empanelment of more than 650 lawyers as Panel Counsel to represent the Union of India before the Supreme Court.
The PIL has been filed by the First Generation Lawyers’ Association, which has claimed that many lawyers selected by the government have not yet cleared the All India Bar Examination (AIBE), even though clearing this exam is mandatory for practicing law in India.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela said it will take up the matter again on December 11.
The Court also asked Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Chetan Sharma to get instructions from the Central government regarding the allegations.
The Bench stated,
“List it next week on Thursday to enable the ASG to obtain instructions,”
showing that the Court expects a clear reply from the government on the issue.
The petitioner argued that the list released by the Ministry of Law & Justice on November 21 has caused “serious concerns” in the legal community.
The PIL says there are irregularities in the selection process, lack of transparency, and even inclusion of lawyers who have only recently enrolled with State Bar Councils.
According to the petition, many of the empanelled advocates were enrolled only in 2024 or even as late as 2025, and some of them have still not cleared the AIBE.
The Association claimed that allowing such inexperienced lawyers to represent the Union of India before the Supreme Court – especially in cases involving constitutional interpretation and major national policies – violates Article 14 of the Constitution, which ensures fairness, equal opportunity, and accountability in government decisions.
The petition stated that previous guidelines require advocates to have a minimum number of years of practice before being eligible for government panels. But the recently issued panel includes advocates with one year or less of experience, and in some cases, no confirmation of AIBE qualification.
The petition further added 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 petitioner also argued that the position of Central Government Counsel involves important public responsibility and requires proper legal knowledge and courtroom experience.
But the notification released by the government does not explain what criteria were used to select these advocates, nor does it show whether applications were invited or how candidates were evaluated or assigned to different categories.
During the morning hearing, advocate Rudra Vikram Singh, representing the petitioner organisation, told the Court that some advocates on the list have not even cleared the AIBE because they enrolled only in 2024 and 2025.
The Court then asked the government’s lawyer about the accuracy of these claims. The Bench asked,
“Is it correct that there are advocates who have just a year of practice? Have they been empanelled for the Supreme Court?”
The Court also questioned the government about the criteria used for empanelment and whether any minimum experience was required.
Central Government Standing Counsel (CGSC) Radhik Dubey, appearing for the government, replied that the PIL should not be entertained and that it is the government’s right to choose its own lawyers.
She stated,
“It is the discretion of the government to decide who stays on the panel,”
and further informed the Court that the ASG would appear in the matter. After this, the Bench kept the matter aside for the time being.
When the case was taken up again in the afternoon session, ASG Chetan Sharma told the Court that he would examine the issue and check whether lawyers who have not cleared the AIBE have been included in the panel. Based on this, the Court decided to hear the case again on December 11.
The petitioner organisation was represented by advocates Rudra Vikram Singh, Ashirvad Kumar Yadav, Neetu Rani, Rashmi Mehta and Anirudh Tyagi.
Click Here to Read More Reports On Lawyers Without AIBE
