The Centre on Wednesday told the Delhi High Court (HC) that it is considering formulating guidelines on empanelment of advocates for representing it before courts. The submission came while the Delhi HC was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the empanelment of advocates for representing the government before the HC, various district and other courts in Delhi.
The court has now granted three months’ time to the government to take a decision on framing of such guidelines.
The PIL, filed by law student Vishal Sharma, has challenged a September 11 order of the Ministry of Law and Justice that had notified the appointment of 38 Central government standing counsels (CGSCs) at the Delhi HC, along with 418 senior panel counsels of the Central government, and 252 others as government pleaders at the HC. Among those appointed were relatives of sitting HC judges as well as BJP leaders. The 418 senior panel counsels appointed on behalf of the Centre at the HC included former Delhi BJP MP Ramesh Bidhuri’s son Himanshu Bidhuri. Among the 38 CGSCs was advocate Amrita Prakash, the spouse of Delhi BJP MLA Abhay Verma.
Vishal Sharma, represented by advocate Shivam Sharma, challenged the empanelment, terming it “arbitrary”, where young advocates — who were enrolled in 2025 and were yet to receive their certificate of practice from the Bar Council of India — too were empanelled.
The PIL also relies on a judgment of the Supreme Court earlier this year that had held that such Central government-appointed empanelled advocates should have experience of at least seven years.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, at the outset on Wednesday, told the division bench of Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela: “I won’t say the case completely lacks merit, the central government will have to take a call and devise some mechanism…There are some issues. Some facts (in the petition) are correct, some facts are not correct, that would be taken care of…I can assure, we are alive to it and appropriate steps shall be taken.”
Recording the statement made by SG Mehta, the court disposed of the petition.
Story continues below this ad
The court noted in its order, “SG..has assured that all the grievances raised in this petition shall be looked into by the appropriate authority in the Central government and decision, which may be warranted under law in respect of such grievances, shall also be taken. (SG) has also assured the court that appropriate decision for framing guidelines for engagement of counsels to represent various departments of the Government of India shall also be taken in the meantime.”
“On the aforesaid assurance given to the court by SG, we provide that this petition shall be treated as a representation, shall be considered, and appropriate decision shall be taken by the competent authority of the Central government, with expedition, within six weeks…As far as decision in relation to framing of guidelines, we grant three months’ time to the Central government and issue appropriate guidelines for engagement of counsels to represent its various departments,” it also noted.
Private lawyers, chosen by the Law department, are empanelled by the Centre or the government of respective states to represent them in various courts for a fixed duration. Empanelled advocates are not a civil post and they are not government servants. Centre-appointed panel counsels are allowed to continue their private practice, but cannot appear or advise in matters against the Centre.
At present, there is no eligibility criteria for such empanelment.
Sohini Ghosh is a Senior Correspondent at The Indian Express. Previously based in Ahmedabad covering Gujarat, she recently moved to the New Delhi bureau, where she primarily covers legal developments at the Delhi High Court
Professional Profile
Background: An alumna of the Asian College of Journalism (ACJ), she previously worked with ET NOW before joining The Indian Express.
Core Beats: Her reporting is currently centered on the Delhi High Court, with a focus on high-profile constitutional disputes, disputes over intellectual property, criminal and civil cases, issues of human rights and regulatory law (especially in the areas of technology and healthcare).
Earlier Specialty: In Gujarat, she was known for her rigorous coverage in the beats of crime, law and policy, and social justice issues, including the 2002 riot cases, 2008 serial bomb blast case, 2016 flogging of Dalits in Una, among others.
She has extensively covered health in the state, including being part of the team that revealed the segregation of wards at the state’s largest government hospital on lines of faith in April 2020.
With Ahmedabad being a UNESCO heritage city, she has widely covered urban development and heritage issues, including the redevelopment of the Sabarmati Ashram
Recent Notable Articles (Late 2025)
Her recent reporting from the Delhi High Court covers major political, constitutional, corporate, and public-interest legal battles:
High-Profile Case Coverage
She has extensively covered the various legal battles - including for compensation under the aegis of North East Delhi Riots Claims Commission - pertaining to the 2020 northeast Delhi riots, as well as 1984 anti-Sikh riots.
She has also led coverage at the intersection of technology and governance, and its impact on the citizenry, from, and beyond courtrooms — such as the government’s stakeholder consultations for framing AI-Deepfake policy.
Signature Style
Sohini is recognized for her sustained reporting from courtrooms and beyond. She specialises in breaking down dense legal arguments to make legalese accessible for readers. Her transition from Gujarat to Delhi has seen her expand her coverage on regulatory, corporate and intellectual property law, while maintaining a strong commitment to human rights and lacuna in the criminal justice system.
X (Twitter): @thanda_ghosh ... Read More
