Ensure Representation Of Marginalised Groups In Govt Advocates' Appointments : Supreme Court Requests MP Advocate General

The Supreme Court on Monday disposed of a plea seeking reservation for advocates belonging to Other Backward Classes in appointments of government pleaders in Madhya Pradesh. While declining to issue binding directions in the absence of a statutory mandate, the Court through its order urged the Advocate General to ensure representation of lawyers from marginalised communities and women.

A Bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice N Kotiswar Singh was hearing the petition, which alleged lack of adequate representation of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and OBC advocates in recent appointments made by the Advocate General's office.

During the hearing, counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the recent round of appointments, not a single advocate from the Scheduled Tribe community had been selected, and only a limited number of Scheduled Caste candidates were accommodated. It was argued that the absence of representation in the Advocate General's office has long term implications for the legal profession, as government law officers often go on to be considered for elevation as judges.

“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 petitioner's counsel submitted.

Justice Sundresh, however, questioned whether such appointments could be subjected to reservations as a matter of right. “Can we give reservations for law clerks? The Advocate General will bring his own people,” he observed.

Justice Kotiswar Singh added that whenever there is a change in the Advocate General, government pleaders also tend to change.

The State counsel argued that it is the prerogative of the Advocate General to appoint his team to represent the State before the Supreme Court, High Court and other courts. According to the State, such appointments are not governed by statutory reservation norms.

Justice Sundresh however said,  “Legally they may not have a right, but at least you have to consider. The Advocate General is the leader of the Bar.”  Justice Kotiswar Singh concurred, observing that it would be “desirable” to ensure broader representation.

The State counsel assured the Bench that the concerns raised would be communicated to the Advocate General.

 Justice Sundresh commented, "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?"

In its order, the Bench noted : "In the absence of a statutory mandate to accommodate to the office of the Advocate General, government pleaders and some others following the rule of reservation, we will only suggest that there must be an element of... So that every aspiring lawyer will have an opportunity to come up in life. We request the Advocate General to make sure that during the appointments, lawyers who are coming from marginalised society and women are duly represented. Disposed of. "

Case : OBC ADVOCATES WELFARE ASSOCIATION v.  STATE OF MP | SLP(C) No. 16512/2022