Concerns Over Transparency as Government Delays Framing Guidelines for Empanelling Advocates

Delays in framing guidelines for the empanelment of advocates representing the Centre before the Delhi High Court and subordinate courts are raising fresh concerns over the transparency of a selection process widely seen as favouring those with influential connections. Eminent senior advocate Rajshekhar Rao said the government’s inaction only deepens doubts over the system’s credibility. “The delay in formulating a cogent and transparent framework for empanelment raises further questions when the need of the hour is to encourage young practitioners through merit-based opportunities and a credible selection process,” he said. The issue had come under judicial scrutiny in December, when the Centre informed the Delhi High Court that it would frame fresh empanelment guidelines during the hearing of a public interest litigation challenging the process. The PIL, filed by a law student, questioned a September 11, 2025 notification issued by the Ministry of Law and Justice empanelling counsels to represent the Central government before the Delhi High Court. The petition alleged that several appointees were related to sitting High Court judges and politicians. Similar PILs over the years have repeatedly flagged opacity and favouritism in government empanelments. More than five months later, however, little progress appears to have been made, despite the High Court granting the government three months to take a decision on framing guidelines. The only significant move so far has been a recent notification by the Law Ministry increasing fees for panel lawyers, who are often paid poorly for government assignments. Empanelment refers to lawyers or law firms being placed on approved panels maintained by government departments, PSUs, banks, regulators and other institutions, making them eligible for legal work from those entities. Though procedures differ across institutions, the broad structure remains similar. Lawyers say the absence of transparent norms has created a “winner-takes-most” ecosystem that disadvantages talented practitioners without institutional backing or political access. Online discussions among litigators have repeatedly highlighted how arbitrary and opaque panel selections limit opportunities for young independent lawyers and increase dependence on referrals and senior networks. Senior advocate Sajan Poovayya said the profession could not continue to function around “opacity and legacy”. “Any empanelment process involving the State must be transparent, merit-based and institutionally fair so that talented independent practitioners and emerging chambers get equal opportunity alongside established names,” he said. “A modern legal system must reward competence and credibility, not merely pedigree and continuity.” Lawyers also point to structural changes reshaping the profession. Institutional clients increasingly expect standardised billing, digital updates, document management, pan-India coordination, AI-assisted review and round-the-clock responsiveness — advantages that larger firms and organised litigation boutiques can better provide. “This is one reason litigation is becoming more corporatised, particularly in DRT/SARFAESI, insolvency, arbitration, regulatory litigation and government panel work,” said a litigator. Artificial intelligence , lawyers say, is further strengthening firms with scale and technological capabilities. Empanelled firms can automate drafting, summarise records, track litigation timelines and standardise legal opinions, forcing independent practitioners to move toward sharper specialisation to remain competitive. At the same time, many lawyers acknowledge that empanelment itself is not inherently problematic. They argue that it has opened institutional work beyond legacy elite chambers, created recurring revenue streams and enabled several modern litigation boutiques to scale successfully. The larger concern, they say, is the opacity of selection, concentration of work allocation, low fee realization, delayed payments and the growing commoditisation of litigation services. Senior advocate Saurabh Kirpal summed up the criticism sharply: “Ideology seems more important than competence in the prevailing ecosystem. This is dangerous because the State is not a private litigant free to choose lawyers arbitrarily. As the country’s largest litigant, the government must be seen as a custodian of public interest. It is time to move beyond the perception: show me the face and I’ll show you the lawyer.”