Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court on Friday, February 7, 2025, rejected a plea filed by Advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara challenging the Delhi High Court's recent designation of 70 advocates as senior advocates.

A bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, while hearing Nedumpara's plea, reiterated that courts treat all lawyers equally.

During the previous hearing, the court came down heavily on the petitioners challenging the Delhi High Court’s decision to designate 70 lawyers as Senior Advocates.

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

In today's hearing, Advocate Mathews Nedumpara said, "With NJAC being set aside, governance, administration, and law-making, everything is under the court. A supreme legislature and a supreme judiciary do not make decisions behind the people's backs. I speak the truth fearlessly." He further added, "My lawyer friends are so fearful of the court."

To this, Justice Gavai responded that lawyers should be fearless and proceeded to dismiss the petition.

When Advocate Mathews Nedumpara continued, Justice Gavai remarked, "I might have changed here, but I have not changed one practice—of not hearing the lawyer after the order is passed. I have been consistently following this practice… We will learn everything from you in a better case. For now, get elected to Parliament and pass an enactment."

Background

Nedumpara and a few other lawyers 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 was in challenge of Sections 16 and 23(5) of the Advocates Act which creates two classes of lawyers, senior advocates and other advocates. the petitioners alleged that this in actual practice has resulted in unthinkable catastrophe and inequities which the Parliament certainly would not have contemplated or foreseen.

Notably, after nearly 3.5 years, the 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 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: SHRI MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA AND ORS. Versus THE FULL COURT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGES OF THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AND ORS.