The Supreme Court has once again dismissed allegations of nepotism in the designation of Senior Advocates, this time shutting down a petition filed by Advocate Mathews J Nedumpara challenging the Delhi High Court’s decision to grant senior designations to 70 advocates. A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and K Vinod Chandran refused to entertain the claim, stating that the seniority designation does not influence how lawyers are treated in courts.
The controversy surrounding the recent designations began when one of the members of the Permanent Committee, Senior Advocate Sudhir Nandrajog, resigned, alleging that the final list was prepared without his consent. Nandrajog, a representative of the Delhi government, was reportedly occupied with an arbitration matter and did not sign off on the final list before it was presented to the full court.
In a previous hearing, the Supreme Court had strongly rebuked Nedumpara for suggesting that relatives of judges were unfairly benefiting from the senior designation process. The Court had challenged him to provide names of judges whose offspring had received this designation, to which Nedumpara responded by submitting a chart detailing the connections between Supreme Court judges and eminent lawyers or judges in their families. However, this was not enough to sway the Court, which ultimately dismissed the petition.
Justice Gavai, while rejecting the plea, remarked that no lawyer receives preferential treatment in the Supreme Court merely due to their senior advocate status. He further dismissed the perception among junior lawyers that senior designations create an uneven playing field, asserting that all advocates should practice fearlessly.
In a parting remark, Justice Gavai suggested that if Nedumpara had issues with the existing provisions of the Advocates Act, he should consider getting elected to Parliament and pushing for a legislative amendment. To this, Nedumpara replied, “I will pursue this.”
This is not the first time Nedumpara has raised concerns over senior designations. In 2023, the Supreme Court had dismissed his earlier challenge to the constitutionality of Section 16 and Section 23(5) of the Advocates Act, which allow classification of lawyers as Senior Advocates and grant them the right to pre-audience, respectively.
For now, the senior designation process remains intact, and the Supreme Court has once again made it clear that donning the coveted “senior gown” does not guarantee special privileges in the judicial system.
Case Title: MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA AND ORS. vs. THE FULL COURT OF THE HONBLE JUDGES OF THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AND ORS., Diary No. 60205-2024
