On February 7, the Supreme Court dismissed a petition filed by Advocate Mathews J Nedumpara, which sought to challenge the Delhi High Court’s decision to confer senior designations on 70 advocates. The Court upheld the integrity of the senior designation process, rejecting claims of bias and nepotism.
The bench, consisting of Justice BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran, swiftly dismissed the petition, with Justice Gavai noting, "We don't see that anybody gets better treatment in this Court because he has a different gown." This statement firmly set the tone for the dismissal, addressing Nedumpara’s insinuations that senior advocates receive preferential treatment in the court.
The petition’s central argument revolved around accusations of nepotism in the conferment of senior designations, with Nedumpara suggesting that some advocates were elevated based on their familial connections to judges. However, the Court was unimpressed by these allegations. Justice Gavai even quipped, “How many judges can you name whose offspring have been made seniors?” in response to Nedumpara’s attempt to provide evidence supporting his claims.
Furthermore, the Court had earlier warned Nedumpara about the seriousness of his accusations. In fact, the petitioner was reprimanded for suggesting that senior designations were influenced by connections, which led to a stern warning of contempt action if the offending allegations were not removed from the petition.
During the hearing, Nedumpara expressed concerns that junior lawyers perceive the system of senior designations as one that fosters favoritism. “My lawyer friends are fearful of the Court,” he remarked. However, Justice Gavai remained firm, responding, “Lawyers must be fearless,” before concluding the hearing.
In an interesting exchange, Justice Gavai also remarked, "You better get elected to Parliament and get this [provision in the Advocates Act regarding senior advocates] removed..." A resolute Nedumpara replied, “I will pursue this.”
The controversy surrounding the senior designations has been ongoing. Last week, the Supreme Court had dismissed a similar petition challenging the Delhi High Court’s senior designations. Earlier in 2023, the Court had also rejected Nedumpara's petition challenging the constitutionality of Sections 16 and 23(5) of the Advocates Act, which outline the criteria for Senior Advocates.
Further complicating the matter, the process of selecting the new Senior Advocates in Delhi High Court had faced internal strife. Senior Advocate Sudhir Nandrajog, a member of the Permanent Committee, resigned after claiming that the final list of senior advocates was prepared without his consent. There were also allegations that the original list had been tampered with, adding fuel to the controversy.
Picture Source :
