Delhi High Court Raps Lawyer For Calling Others To Join Hearing On Alleged Arbitrary Empanelment Of Govt Counsel

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday rapped a lawyer for publicly urging other members of the bar to join his petition alleging arbitrariness and unfairness in the appointment of lawyers as Union Government's panel counsel before the Supreme Court.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia pulled up Advocate Rudra Vikram Singh who is President of First-Generation Lawyers Association (FGLA), the organization which filed the petition.

At the outset, ASG Chetan Sharma appearing for Central Government opposed the petition saying that it is motivated and is being used by Singh as a tool for campaigning his candidature for upcoming Delhi Bar Council elections. The ASG said that no disclosure was made in the petition as to whether the association is registered under any law.

Singh admitted that he was contemplating to contest the elections but submitted that he had no intention to use the institution of the petition as a tool for election campaign.

ASG then referred to social media posts made by the association to ask other lawyers to join the hearing of the petition. He said that Singh also shared the posts in his individual capacity. Though Singh denied the allegation, the Court took strong exception to the posts. The CJ told Singh:

“If you are genuine association, you have filed the petition. You are arguing. There are lawyers who are your members and they can be present but what is this? Is it not a call giving others to join the link? “Click here to join link” what is the purpose of this? Is it not a call? In how many matters do you give such a call? Are you here to disturb the court?"

Adding to this, Justice Karia remarked: “This is against the VC Rules of this court. You can't have these kind of tweets circulating. The VC Rules say only parties and lawyers can join.”

The Bench remarked that the action was not in good taste and that posting such messages on social media is prima facie violation of the VC Rules of the Delhi High, 2025.

At this stage, Singh said that any such tweets or social media posts shall be deleted.

“I am advising you as a senior. Having grievances in the system is understandable but there is a way to express. If you remain obsessed with whatever you know, that is not going to sort out the problem. There is always a better and lawful and legally permissible means to ventilate all that. We request and advise you yo be a bit cautious. Sanctity of court proceedings should be maintained at any cost. Otherwise the beautiful system that we have got, we will be bereft of this. You come to court ultimately. Don't lose the Court. Make better use of the court and judges. Don't get swayed by all this,” CJ told Singh.

The Court ultimately disposed of the petition, taking note of an earlier order passed by it on December 17, 2025, wherein three months' time was granted to the Union Government for issuing guidelines for engagement of counsels to represent its various departments.

This was after a statement made by SGI Tushar Mehta was recorded to the effect that the Central Government will “take a call” and devise appropriate mechanism regarding empanelment of lawyers.

“Having regard to the order passed on December 17, 2025, we are of the opinion that once we have already relegated the petitioner (in another petition) to approach the Union of India to treat the petition as a representation, we find it appropriate to direct that the petitioner shall also be treated as a representation,” the Court ordered.

The Bench directed the competent authority of the Union of India to consider the grievances raised in the petition in respect of the individuals who have been empaneled and a decision be taken within eight weeks.

Regarding prayer for framing of policy, it further directed the Centre to consider the issues raised in the petition while taking any decision on framing of policy.

“The decision regarding framing of policy or guidelines shall precipitate within three months,” the Court said.

The plea filed by FGLA sought quashing of the empanelment list published on November 21, 2025, alleging that it includes names of lawyers who are ineligible for appointment, including numerous advocates who were enrolled only in the year 2024 and 2025 and some who have not even cleared the All India Bar Examination (AIBE).

The plea averred that the impanelment suffers from serious procedural irregularities, absence of published eligibility norms, lack of transparency in evaluation and non-disclosure of any objective selection mechanism.

It further said that the impugned notification does not disclose any criteria used for selecting the listed advocates, invitation for applications, public notice, or objective evaluation parameters.

“Furthermore, several advocates with decades of experience have been excluded without any explanation, while those with extremely limited experience, some having only months of practice have been included in the highest category of Government Counsel,” the plea said.

It sought framing of a transparent and uniform eligibility criteria for appointment or engagement of Central Government Counsel before the Supreme Court, including minimum experience, case-handling exposure, AIBE qualification and domain knowledge.

The plea further sought constitution of an Independent Screening Committee comprising retired judges or independent legal experts for supervising future empanelment processes of Central Government Counsel before the Supreme Court.

Title: First Generation Lawyers Association (FGLA) v. Union of India & Ors