The Delhi High Court has disposed of a public interest litigation filed by the First Generation Lawyers Association (FGLA) challenging the Central Government’s panel of lawyers empanelled to represent the Union of India, as reflected in the list dated 21 November 2025.
The petition sought the following directions-
• Direct the Union of India to place the complete record of the empanelment process dated 21.11.2025, including criteria, evaluation method, marking sheets, objections, and material relied upon.
• Quash the empanelment list dated 21.11.2025 to the extent it includes ineligible persons.
• Direct framing of transparent and uniform eligibility criteria for engagement of Central Government Counsel before the Supreme Court.
• Mandate a fair, transparent, and merit-based process for all future empanelments, including open applications and uniform evaluation.
• Direct disclosure of the list of applicants, their evaluations, and the records leading to the selection of 654 advocates under the Group-A panel.
• Direct constitution of an independent screening committee to oversee future empanelments.
• Pass any other appropriate orders in the interest of justice.
During the hearing, the Union of India drew the Court’s attention to an earlier order dated 17 December 2025, wherein a similar writ petition had been disposed of on the assurance of the Solicitor General that all grievances relating to empanelment would be examined by the competent authority and that a decision regarding the framing of guidelines would be taken.
Taking note of the said assurance and the earlier order dated 17 December 2025, the bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia observed that since the petitioner in the earlier writ petition had already been relegated to approach the Union Government for consideration of its grievances, it would be appropriate to extend the same course to the instant petition.
Accordingly, the Court directed the competent authority of the Central Government to take an appropriate decision on the representation within six weeks. Insofar as the grievances raised with respect to individuals who have already been empanelled are concerned, the Court directed that the same be considered and a decision taken in accordance with law within eight weeks.
On the issue of framing a policy for engaging lawyers to represent the Central Government and its departments, the Court clarified that the decision regarding framing of policy or guidelines for engagement of Central Government counsel shall be taken within the 3 months’ time already granted earlier, and that the issues and suggestions raised in the present petition must also be considered.
During the hearing, the respondent raised objections regarding the institution of the PIL, alleging that it was being used to promote the petitioner’s candidature in the forthcoming Bar Council of Delhi elections. Screenshots of social media posts were placed on record. He submitted that the petition did not disclose whether the petitioner was registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 or any other law.
Responding to the objections, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the association was duly registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. While it was admitted that the President of the petitioner was contemplating contesting the Bar Council of Delhi elections, it was stated that there was no intention to use the institution of the writ petition for campaigning purposes. The Court recorded this statement.
The Court recorded objections raised by the respondent and observed that such social media posts prima facie appeared to violate the Delhi High Court’s Electronic Evidence and Video Conferencing Rules, 2025. Assurances were given on behalf of the petitioner that such posts would be deleted and the petition would not be used for campaigning purposes were placed on record.
The Bench also permitted Ms Mamta Sharma to submit a separate representation to the Secretary, Law and Justice, Government of India, raising her grievances and suggestions within one week, and directed that any such representation be considered while taking a decision in terms of the present order
With these directions and observations, the writ petition was disposed of.
Appearances
Petitioner- Mr.Rudra Vikram Singh, Mr.Ashirvad Kumar Yadav, Ms.Neetu Rani, Ms.Rashmi, Mr.Tarshith Bhardwaj, Mr.Nitish Banka, Mr.Shanshank Shukla, Mr.Anirudh Tyagi, Mr.Abhishek Sharma, Ms.Vansmani Tripathi, Ms.Kanchan, Mr.Anit Pal Yadav, Mr.Akhil Jindal, Ms.Megna Srivastva, Ms.Tanu Mittal, Mr.Abhishek Singh Parmar, Mr.Sahil Ms.Reema Chauhan, Advs.
Respondents- Mr.Chetan Sharma, ASG with Ms.Radhika Bishwajit Dubey, CGSC, Ms.Gurleen Kaur Waraich, Mr.Kritarth Upadhyay, Mr.Amit Gupta, Mr.Shubham Sharma, Mr.Vikram Adiya Singh, Advs & Ms.Samiksha, GP for UOI. Mr.Mangesh Naik, Adv for Ms.Mamta Sharma.
