Legis Orbis

Tag: #SupremeCourt

  • No Nepotism in Senior Designation! Top Court Junks Plea Alleging Irregularity in Senior Advocates’ Selection

    No Nepotism in Senior Designation! Top Court Junks Plea Alleging Irregularity in Senior Advocates’ Selection

    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

  • [NEET PG] Domicile-Based Reservations in PG Medical Courses Unconstitutional

    [NEET PG] Domicile-Based Reservations in PG Medical Courses Unconstitutional

    In a landmark decision on January 29, 2025, the Supreme Court of India declared domicile-based reservations in postgraduate (PG) medical courses unconstitutional, citing violations of Article 14 of the Constitution. This ruling mandates that state quota seats in PG medical admissions be filled solely based on merit as determined by the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET).

    Key Highlights of the Judgment:

    • Violation of Article 14: The bench, comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Sudhanshu Dhulia, and SVN Bhatti, emphasized that residence-based reservations in PG medical courses contravene the constitutional guarantee of equality. Justice Dhulia remarked, “We are all domiciles in the territory of India. There is nothing like a provincial or state domicile. There is only one domicile. We are all residents of India.”
    • Merit-Based Admissions: The court directed that state quota seats should be allocated based on NEET scores, ensuring a uniform and meritocratic approach to PG medical admissions. This decision aligns with previous judgments, including Pradeep Jain and Saurabh Chandra cases, which upheld the principle of merit-based admissions.
    • Impact on Current Students: The ruling does not affect students currently enrolled in PG medical courses under domicile-based reservations or those who have completed their studies. The court clarified that the judgment applies only to future admissions.

    Implications of the Ruling:

    This judgment marks a significant shift in India’s medical education landscape, reinforcing the commitment to meritocracy and equality. By eliminating domicile-based reservations in PG medical courses, the Supreme Court aims to ensure that admissions are based on individual merit, thereby promoting a more equitable and efficient healthcare system.

    Conclusion:

    The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the importance of merit-based admissions in maintaining the integrity and quality of medical education in India. As the nation moves forward, this ruling is expected to influence policies across various states, fostering a more inclusive and competitive environment for aspiring medical professionals.