The Supreme Court of India refused to order reservation for OBC advocates in the appointment of government pleaders in Madhya Pradesh, citing absence of any statutory mandate. However, the Court strongly urged the MP Advocate General to ensure fair representation of marginalised communities and women in future appointments.
The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday disposed of a petition that sought reservation for advocates belonging to Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in the appointment of government pleaders in Madhya Pradesh.
The Court held that it cannot issue any binding or enforceable directions in the absence of a specific law or statutory provision providing for such reservation. However, while refusing to grant legal relief, the Court strongly urged the Advocate General of Madhya Pradesh to ensure proper representation of lawyers from marginalised communities and women while making future appointments.
The matter was heard by a Bench comprising Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh. The petition alleged that there is a serious and continuing under-representation of advocates from Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs) and Other Backward Classes in recent appointments made by the Advocate General’s office in the State.
According to the petitioner, this lack of diversity in the panel of government law officers has wider and long-term consequences for the legal profession and institutional representation.
During the hearing, Advocate Varun Thakur, appearing for the petitioner, pointed out that in the most recent round of appointments, not even a single advocate from the Scheduled Tribe community had been selected.
He further highlighted that only a very small number of Scheduled Caste advocates were included. Thakur submitted that appointments as government pleaders play a critical role in shaping a lawyer’s professional growth and future career prospects within the legal system.
“There is no representation of the people we are representing. Once they are appointed as government lawyers, they can get appointed as judges. But currently there is no representation,”
the counsel argued before the Court. He stressed that exclusion at the level of government law officers effectively blocks access to higher opportunities, including elevation to the judiciary, for lawyers from marginalised backgrounds.
Justice Sundresh, however, questioned whether reservation in such appointments can be claimed as a legal right. Drawing a comparison, he observed that similar claims cannot be made in other discretionary legal appointments.
“Can we give reservations for law clerks? The Advocate General will bring his own people,”
he remarked, indicating that such appointments are based on trust, confidence and professional discretion.
Justice Kotiswar Singh added that government pleaders usually change with a change in the Advocate General, highlighting the temporary and position-based nature of these engagements. He noted that such appointments are not permanent posts and are closely linked to the tenure and choice of the Advocate General.
Appearing for the State of Madhya Pradesh, the counsel argued that the appointment of government pleaders falls entirely within the prerogative of the Advocate General.
The State submitted that the Advocate General is entitled to choose a legal team of his or her choice to represent the State before the Supreme Court, High Court and other courts. It was further argued that these appointments are not governed by statutory service rules or reservation policies applicable to regular public employment.
While acknowledging this legal position, Justice Sundresh emphasised that discretion must be exercised with a sense of responsibility.
“Legally they may not have a right, but at least you have to consider. The Advocate General is the leader of the Bar,”
he observed. Justice Kotiswar Singh also supported this view, stating that ensuring broader and more inclusive representation would be “desirable”.
The Bench further reflected on the structural advantages that come with holding important legal offices. Justice Sundresh pointed out that professional growth in the legal field is often closely tied to access to institutional opportunities.
“Others should also emerge. All of you know that everybody has got a history. You reach this stage primarily because of the office you are occupying. It applies to all of us. If that opportunity is not given how will they emerge?”
he said.
In response, the State’s counsel assured the Court that the concerns raised during the hearing would be conveyed to the Advocate General of Madhya Pradesh for proper consideration while making future appointments.
In its final order, the Supreme Court made it clear that since there is no statutory mandate providing for reservation in the appointment of the Advocate General or government pleaders, the Court cannot issue any enforceable directions.
ALSO READ: “Clarify Whether Govt. Pleaders Are Gazetted Officers’ Within One Month”: Kerala HC to State
However, it recorded a clear recommendation and request. The Bench noted that while legal rights cannot be enforced in such matters, a more inclusive and representative approach should be adopted.
The Court formally requested that in future appointments, due representation be given to lawyers from marginalised communities and women so that deserving members of the Bar are provided fair opportunities to grow and advance in their professional careers. With these observations and recommendations, the petition was disposed of.
Case Title:
OBC Advocates Welfare Association v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Click Here to Read More Reports On Govt Pleaders
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
