Read Time: 05 minutes
During the hearing, the court noted that the marks assigned by one member of the Permanent Committee were not considered
The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday, April 15, 2025, directed the Delhi High Court to reconsider afresh the applications for senior designation of advocates that were either deferred or rejected in its earlier exercise.
A bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was dealing with a petition challenging the Delhi High Court's November 2024 decision to confer senior designations on 70 advocates.
While examining the matter, the bench noted that the marks assigned by one member of the permanent committee were not considered during the earlier process.
The bench thus observed that the appropriate course would be to direct the high court to re-evaluate the applications of deferred and rejected candidates in accordance with the High Court of Delhi Designation of Senior Advocates Rules, 2024.
Accordingly, the court directed the registrar general to initiate the reconstitution of the Permanent Committee in accordance with Rule 3 of the 2024 Rules.
Further, it ordered that the applications of deferred and rejected candidates be placed before the reconstituted committee and processed as per the 2024 Rules.
On November 29, 2024, the Delhi High Court’s Full Court conferred Senior Advocate status on 70 lawyers after interviewing 302 candidates.
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.
The 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 centres 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.
Case Title: Raman Gandhi v. Registrar General, HC of Delhi
Please Login or Register
