Delhi High Court Slams Lawyer’s Social Media Plea in Panel Lawyer Appointment Case – A Warning on Judicial Decorum
New Delhi, India – In a stern rebuke highlighting the evolving intersection of legal practice and social media, the Delhi High Court today strongly reprimanded lawyer Rudra Vikram Singh for publicly appealing to fellow advocates to attend the hearing of a petition challenging the Central Government’s appointment of panel lawyers. The incident underscores the importance of maintaining judicial decorum in the digital age and raises critical questions about transparency in government legal appointments.
Court Condemns Social Media Campaign as Disruptive
The division bench, comprising Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyay and Justice Tejas Karia, took exception to social media posts shared by Singh and the First Generation Lawyers Association, which contained links inviting other lawyers to the court hearing. While Singh initially denied direct responsibility for the posts, the court deemed the action a clear violation of the Delhi High Court Video Conferencing Rules, 2025, which restrict attendance to parties and their legal counsel.
“If the union filed the petition and is itself advocating for it, then what is the justification for publicly calling others to attend the hearing?” Chief Justice Upadhyay questioned, describing the practice as disruptive to court proceedings. Justice Karia further emphasized that the conduct was “inappropriate and indecent,” representing a prima facie breach of established rules.
Underlying Petition: Allegations of Arbitrariness and Lack of Transparency
The core of the dispute lies in a petition filed by Singh, alleging arbitrariness and a lack of transparency in the Central Government’s process for appointing panel lawyers. The petition specifically questioned the inclusion of lawyers deemed ineligible – including those recently enrolled and those who haven’t passed the All India Bar Examination – on the list released on November 21, 2025. This isn’t a new concern; questions about the fairness and objectivity of these appointments have simmered within the legal community for years.
Evergreen Context: The Role of Panel Lawyers Panel lawyers play a crucial role in representing the government in various legal matters. Their selection directly impacts the quality of legal defense and the fairness of proceedings. A transparent and merit-based selection process is therefore vital for upholding the rule of law. Historically, concerns have centered around potential political influence and a lack of standardized criteria.
Government Response and Election Concerns
Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, representing the Central Government, countered the petition, suggesting it was motivated by Singh’s potential candidacy in the upcoming Delhi Bar Council elections. Sharma argued the petition was being used as a publicity platform. Singh admitted to considering a run for office but denied using the petition for campaign purposes.
Court Directs Government to Expedite Guidelines
Despite the reprimand, the court didn’t dismiss the petition outright. Instead, it treated it as a representation to the Central Government, directing the relevant authority to decide on the matter within eight weeks. This directive builds upon a previous order from December 17, 2025, where the government was given three months to issue guidelines for appointing government advocates – a commitment made by the Solicitor General at the time. The court also requested that the issues raised in the petition be considered when formulating these new guidelines.
Evergreen Insight: Legal Ethics in the Digital Age This case serves as a potent reminder of the evolving ethical landscape for lawyers. While social media offers powerful tools for advocacy and networking, it also presents challenges to traditional notions of judicial decorum and professional conduct. Lawyers must navigate these complexities carefully, balancing their right to free expression with their responsibility to uphold the integrity of the legal system.
The Delhi High Court’s decisive action sends a clear message: while legitimate concerns about the legal system deserve to be addressed, they must be pursued through established legal channels and with respect for the dignity of the court. This ruling is likely to spark further discussion within the legal community about the appropriate use of social media in legal proceedings and the need for clear guidelines on digital advocacy. Stay tuned to Archyde.com for continued coverage of this developing story and in-depth analysis of legal trends shaping the future of justice.
