Supreme Court Refuses Quota for Government Pleaders, Asks MP AG to Ensure Marginalised Representation

At the same time, the Court strongly urged the Advocate General of Madhya Pradesh to ensure due representation of lawyers from marginalised communities and women while making such appointments.

The bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice N Kotiswar Singh was hearing the plea, which alleged systematic under-representation of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and OBC advocates in recent appointments made by the Advocate General’s office.

The petitioner contended that the absence of diversity in the State’s panel of law officers had wider institutional consequences for the legal profession.

During the hearing, Advocate Varun Thakur for the petitioner pointed out that in the latest round of appointments, not a single advocate from the Scheduled Tribe community had been selected, while only a limited number of Scheduled Caste advocates were accommodated. Thakur argued that government law officer positions play a crucial role in career progression within the legal ecosystem.

“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 counsel submitted, stressing that exclusion at the level of government pleaders effectively shuts the door on future opportunities, including judicial elevation.

Justice Sundresh, however, questioned whether reservations could be claimed as a matter of right in such appointments. Drawing an analogy, he asked, “Can we give reservations for law clerks? The Advocate General will bring his own people,” indicating that the nature of these appointments involves a degree of discretion and professional confidence.

Justice Kotiswar Singh added that government pleaders often change with a change in the Advocate General, underlining the non-permanent and position-based nature of such engagements.

Appearing for the State, counsel argued that appointments of government pleaders fall squarely within the prerogative of the Advocate General, who is entitled to choose a team to represent the State before the Supreme Court, High Court and other courts. The State maintained that these appointments are not governed by statutory service rules or reservation norms applicable to public employment.

While acknowledging the legal position, Justice Sundresh made it clear that discretion cannot be divorced from responsibility. “Legally they may not have a right, but at least you have to consider. The Advocate General is the leader of the Bar,” he observed. Justice Kotiswar Singh echoed this sentiment, noting that ensuring broader representation would be “desirable”.

The Bench also reflected on the structural advantages associated with holding key legal offices. Justice Sundresh remarked that professional growth is often tied to institutional opportunities. “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?” he said.

In response, the State counsel assured the Court that the concerns raised would be conveyed to the Advocate General for due consideration.

In its final order, the Bench stopped short of issuing any enforceable directions but made a clear recommendation. It noted that in the absence of a statutory mandate providing for reservation in appointments to the offices of the Advocate General and government pleaders, the Court could only suggest a more inclusive approach. The order recorded the Court’s request that, during future appointments, lawyers from marginalised communities and women be duly represented so that aspiring members of the Bar are given a fair opportunity to advance in their professional lives.

With these observations, the petition was disposed of.