Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court today came down heavily on the petitioners before it challenging the Delhi High Court’s decision to designate 70 lawyers as Senior Advocates.

"How many judges you can name who's offsprings have been named as senior?", Justice BR Gavai led bench asked Advocate Mathews Nedumpara.

Nedumpara and a few other lawyers have approached the top court against a long chain of controversies concerning designating lawyers as “senior advocates” by the various High Courts and even by the Supreme Court, the latest being the allegation that the designation process undertaken by the Delhi High Court was entirely flawed, motivated by considerations of favouritism, nepotism, and all sorts of inequities and questionable considerations.

The instant petition is in challenge of Sections 16 and 23(5) of the Advocates Act which creates two classes of lawyers, senior advocates and other advocates which in actual practice has resulted in unthinkable catastrophe and inequities which the Parliament certainly would not have contemplated or foreseen.

"We find various scurrilous averments made here..Mr. Nedumpara needs some time to reflect..", Justice Gavai observed today.

Adding to this, Justice KV Vishwanathan asked Nedumpara to make up his mind if he wants to continue with this petition in the same form. "Be very clear on that, if this comes in the same form, we will take up action against those named here..", the bench added.

A lawyer who is signatory to these pleadings is also equally guilty of contempt, court further said.

"The legal profession in India has long been feudalistic and the monopoly of certain higher castes and certain families. It is no secret that the powerful lawyers using their clout, got their kith and kin and progeny designated even by this Hon’ble Court as Senior advocates even at the ages of 34, 37 etc. even by amending the rules which then mandated the minimum age to be 45 years...", the plea submits.

Court has further been told that the bar has lost all its independence and vitality and what is true about the ordinary member of the bar and designated senior advocates is equally true of government law officers enjoying constitutional stature.

Recently, after nearly 3.5 years, Delhi High Court designated 70 lawyers, including 12 women, as senior advocates. 

The senior designation was conferred by a permanent committee comprising Chief Justice Manmohan, the next two senior most judges of the High Court, Vibhu Bakhru and Yashwant Varma, Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma and senior advocates Sudhir Nandrajog and Mohit Mathur evaluated the candidates.

High Court's decision has been under the spotlight since one of the members of the Permanent Committee resigned over claims that the final list was prepared without his consent. Allegedly, Senior Advocate Nandrajog did not sign on the final list, which was circulated to the full court for deliberation, as he was busy in arbitration for two days.

Furthermore, the controversy centers on claims that the final list that was presented for the full court’s approval had been altered, deviating from the original list that the committee had intended. It is being suggested that the original list, which was more thoroughly vetted and approved by the Permanent Committee, was tampered with or modified before it reached the full court for consideration.