The Supreme Court directed the Delhi High Court to reconsider the applications for senior designations, which had been deferred or rejected in November 2024, in compliance with the existing guidelines under the "The High Court of Delhi Designations of Senior Advocates Rules 2024." The bench, consisting of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, issued this order to address the discrepancies in the process and to ensure fairness in the treatment of applicants. The Court noted that the failure to consider the marks assigned by one of the Permanent Committee members was a central issue in this case.
The matter pertains to the ongoing challenge to the senior designation process followed by the Delhi High Court, specifically the deferment or rejection of applications for senior designation of several advocates. The Delhi High Court had designated 70 advocates as Senior Advocates in November 2024, while 67 applications were deferred, and others were rejected. This discrepancy came under scrutiny after allegations of procedural irregularities were raised, particularly by Sudhir Nandrajog, a former member of the Permanent Committee.
The counsel for the petitioner, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, argued that the fresh exercise should be completed within a fixed period of four weeks, emphasizing that the designation process in November was completed expeditiously. However, the Court declined this request, acknowledging the need for time to review the judgments and documents submitted by candidates. In response, Singh requested that the deferred applications be considered by the Full Court instead of the Permanent Committee, but the Court did not direct any such change.
The Court also directed the Registrar General of the Delhi High Court to take necessary steps to reconstitute the Permanent Committee as per the rules. The bench emphasized that the applications of the deferred and rejected candidates must be reconsidered in accordance with the existing rules and that the Permanent Committee should process these applications with full regard to the established guidelines.
The Court highlighted the issue with the Permanent Committee’s role, particularly following the resignation of Sudhir Nandrajog, who cited irregularities in the process. Justice Oka referred to the 2017 judgment in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India, which limits the role of the Permanent Committee to merely assigning points based on objective criteria, and not making recommendations. Justice Oka further noted that the role of the Committee should be strictly limited to the allocation of points as per the Jitender Kalla case, which reaffirmed this limitation.
The Apex Court directed the Delhi High Court to re-evaluate the applications for senior designation, ensuring adherence to the applicable rules and guidelines, and addressing the concerns of procedural fairness and transparency. The Court disposed of the petition with clear directions on reconstituting the Permanent Committee and reconsidering the deferred and rejected applications in compliance with the rules.
Picture Source :
