Supreme Court Reprimands Petitioners Over Allegations In Delhi High Court Senior Lawyers’ Nomination Case

The Supreme Court has strongly objected to the allegations in a petition challenging the Delhi High Court’s recent decision to nominate 70 lawyers, including 12 women, as senior advocates.

Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Vishwanathan, who formed the bench, questioned the petitioner about whether the judges’ children had been nominated as senior lawyers. The court also reprimanded the petitioner for making claims of nepotism in the petition, instructing them to amend the allegations.

The petition, filed by Mathews J Nedumpara and others, accused the judiciary of appointing the relatives of judges to the prestigious senior advocate status.

The court sharply countered and asked the petitioners to provide specific examples of judges’ children who were made senior advocates. Justice Gavai emphasized that the court would take action against the petitioners if they did not remove such allegations from the petition.

Supreme Court Criticizes Claims

During the hearing, Mathews J Nedumpara, one of the petitioners, claimed that the bar was afraid of judges. Justice Gavai responded sternly, stating, “This is a court of law.” He also urged the petitioner to focus on providing legal arguments rather than making sweeping statements.

He further remarked that the petitioner should refrain from engaging in public speeches, referencing a protest held at Azad Maidan in Mumbai.

Details Of The Senior Advocate Nominations

This petition comes after a significant decision by the Delhi High Court, which granted senior advocate status to 70 lawyers after a gap of almost 3.5 years.

A standing committee, consisting of Chief Justice Manmohan, the next two senior-most judges, Vibhu Bakhru and Yashwant Verma, Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, and senior advocates Sudhir Nandrajog and Mohit Mathur, thoroughly evaluated the nominations.

The committee’s process involved weeks of interviews, culminating in a full court meeting where each shortlisted candidate was subjected to an independent and frank analysis.

Despite the committee’s careful deliberation, controversy arose when Senior Advocate Sudhir Nandrajog resigned, claiming that the final list of nominees had been prepared without his consent.

Transparency In The Nomination Process

The Supreme Court and High Courts grant the senior advocate designation as a mark of recognition for a lawyer’s expertise, courtroom skills, and legal knowledge.

It also allows lawyers to charge significantly higher fees. More than 300 lawyers applied for this prestigious status, which is considered one of the highest honours in the legal profession.

In response to the petition, the court emphasized the rigorous evaluation process behind the nomination of the 70 new senior advocates, including the comprehensive assessment by the committee members.

Also Read: Supreme Court to Hear Petition Challenging BJP MP Dr Mahesh Sharma’s Election