The Delhi High Court directs Centre to verify claims that lawyers appointed to represent the government in the Supreme Court are yet to clear the AIBE. The Court heard a PIL challenging appointment of 650 lawyers for the Union.
The Delhi High Court granted the Central government eight weeks to investigate allegations that some of the 650 lawyers empanelled to represent it before the Supreme Court have not passed the All India Bar Examination (AIBE), a prerequisite for practicing law in India.
A Division Bench consisting of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia has also directed the government to establish a policy for the empanelment of attorneys representing the Union of India in various forums, as instructed in a previous ruling last year.
The Court ordered,
“We direct that the grievances raised by the petition in respect of individuals empanelled shall be considered and a decision be taken within eight weeks from today,”
This order was issued in response to a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by an organization known as the First Generation Lawyers Association.
The petition highlighted that the list of empanelled lawyers released by the Ministry of Law & Justice on November 21, 2025, raised serious concerns within the legal community regarding alleged irregularities, transparency issues, and the inclusion of recently enrolled advocates.
The petition contended that many individuals listed on the panel were registered with State Bar Councils only in 2024 or 2025, with some yet to pass the AIBE.
The Association claimed that appointing such inexperienced lawyers to represent the Union of India in the Supreme Court, particularly in cases involving constitutional interpretation and national policy, contravenes constitutional principles of fairness, equality of opportunity, and accountability as stipulated in Article 14.
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Chetan Sharma, representing the Central government, argued that the petitioner organization and its President, Advocate Rudra Vikram Singh, were utilizing the PIL to campaign for the upcoming Bar Council of Delhi (BCD) elections.
Sharma further alleged that Singh and the organization were active on social media concerning the court proceedings, including sharing the Court’s virtual conference link and inviting people to join the proceedings.
The ASG remarked,
“There is something sinister,”
Advocate Singh, representing the petitioner organization, emphasized their commitment to protecting the interests of lawyers and clarified that while he is considering running for election, he does not intend to use the PIL as campaign material.
After reviewing the case, the Bench noted that sharing the Court’s virtual conference link constitutes a breach of the Delhi High Court Electronic Evidence and Video Conferencing Rules, 2025.
It recorded Singh’s assurance that he would remove all social media posts sharing the VC links and confirmed that the PIL would not be leveraged for electoral campaigning.
Alongside Singh, Advocates Ashirvad Kumar Yadav, Neetu Rani, Rashmi Mehta, and Anirudh Tyagi represented the petitioner organization. Central Government Standing Counsel Radhika Dubey also represented the Union of India.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
