Bench Urges Advocate General to Take Corrective Steps

New Delhi | Special Correspondent: Deepak Sagar

The Supreme Court has expressed serious concern over the alleged lack of representation of marginalised communities in Madhya Pradesh’s government legal panel. While clarifying that it cannot issue direct directions on reservation in such appointments, the Court urged the State’s Advocate General to take corrective measures to ensure broader social inclusion.


Hearing a petition that highlighted the absence of Scheduled Tribe (ST) representation among government advocates in the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the bench stressed the importance of equitable opportunities in public legal appointments.


Key Observations by the Court
No Scheduled Tribe lawyer has reportedly been appointed to the government panel in the High Court to date.
Representation of Scheduled Castes (SC), Other Backward Classes (OBC), and women is said to be extremely limited.
“If opportunities are not given, how will representation increase?” the bench remarked.


The Court emphasized that though appointments are the prerogative of the Advocate General, social inclusion cannot be overlooked.
A bench comprising Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh made these observations during the hearing. The petitioner’s counsel, Advocate Varun Thakur, argued that since Independence, no lawyer from the Scheduled Tribe community has been included in the State’s government legal panel. He further submitted that out of over 100 appointments, only one woman lawyer has reportedly been appointed, reflecting a stark gender imbalance.

Impact on Judicial Diversity
The Court also noted that government law officers are often considered for elevation to the judiciary. If diversity is absent at the entry level, achieving balance in the higher judiciary becomes difficult, the bench observed.


When the State submitted that appointments fall within the exclusive domain of the Advocate General, the Court responded that while it may not have the authority to mandate changes, the issue certainly deserves serious consideration.


“The Advocate General is the leader of the Bar. Even if there is no enforceable right, the matter should at least be examined,” the bench stated.

Court Stops Short of Issuing Binding Directions
In conclusion, the Supreme Court requested the Advocate General to examine the issue and consider taking necessary corrective steps to ensure that qualified lawyers from marginalised communities are given fair opportunities.
The Court clarified that it was making a suggestion rather than issuing a binding order.

The case has once again brought the debate on social representation and inclusivity within judicial and administrative systems into sharp focus. Attention now turns to the Madhya Pradesh government and the Advocate General’s office to see what steps, if any, will follow.