NEW DELHI: The Delhi HC on Tuesday directed the central government to file its reply to a plea alleging that some of the 650 lawyers empanelled to represent the Union of India before the Supreme Court have not cleared the All India Bar Examination (AIBE), a mandatory requirement to practise law in India.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia also asked the government to frame a policy for the empanelment of lawyers to represent the Union of India before different forums. The bench directed the government to file its reply within eight weeks.
“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,” the court said.
The bench was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) which claimed that the list of empanelled lawyers issued by the Ministry of Law and Justice on November 21, 2025 raised “serious concerns” within the legal community over alleged irregularities, lack of transparency and inclusion of newly enrolled advocates.
The petitioner, First Generation Lawyers Association, alleged that several individuals named in the panel were enrolled with State Bar Councils only in 2024 or even 2025, with some yet to clear the AIBE.
The plea argued that appointing such inexperienced lawyers to represent the Union of India in the SC, particularly in matters involving constitutional interpretation and national policy, violated constitutional mandates of fairness, equality of opportunity and accountability under Article 14.
During the hearing, the central government claimed that the organisation and its president, advocate Rudra Vikram Singh, had used the PIL for campaigning in the upcoming Bar Council of Delhi elections. Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, appearing for the Centre, submitted that Singh and the petitioner organisation were posting about the court proceedings on social media.
Also in court
Lawyer pulled up over online posts
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday pulled up a lawyer for sharing video conference links of court proceedings on social media, holding that the act violated rules. The bench directed Advocate Rudra Vikram Singh to delete all such posts and said the PIL should not be used as campaign material for bar elections. Recording Singh’s statement, the court noted he would delete the posts.