The Supreme Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Senior Advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara challenging the senior designation system as elitist and unconstitutional. The Chief Justice observed that the plea was not maintainable and curtailed arguments, remarking, “enough spoken for social media!”
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India on Friday heard a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of the system for designating Senior Advocates, with the petitioner calling it elitist, discriminatory, and unconstitutional.
The case was filed by Mathews J. Nedumpara, who appeared in person and questioned the long-standing practice of conferring senior designation on select lawyers.
The matter was heard by a Bench comprising the Chief Justice of India and Justice Joymalya Bagchi.
At the very outset of the hearing, Senior Advocate Nedumpara expressed his unwillingness to pursue the matter further.
He told the Court:
“(order passed against me based on completely false)
I am not going to pursue my matter, my lord. The people judge me. People know about me. Either they say good or bad about me. By dismissing my petition is of no consequence. Let me take just one min.”
Responding to this request, the Chief Justice of India remarked:
“Your one minute is probably defined in a different manner.”
During the interaction, Senior Advocate Nedumpara explained the difficulty of arguing when appearing in his own case and said:
“My lord, even tracing the cases taking time. I am sorry, my lord. That is the difference when you appear for your own matter, when you appear for a client, that is the difference.”
To this, the Chief Justice made a light-hearted remark:
“So better we engage a senior.”
Senior Advocate Nedumpara immediately rejected the suggestion and reiterated his long-standing opposition to the senior designation system. He stated:
“No, no, no. My lord, I have committed to abolish the system. I have been fighting against for the last campaigning for the last 20 years. I don’t want any senior, my lord.”
He then referred to past allegations against him and explained his version of events involving a call record dispute. He told the Court:
“The Advocate General Maharaja Virendra Saraf and his client filed an affidavit. The affidavit says that I called him from my number. And Bombay High Court initiated a condemnation call proceedings against me. I filed an affidavit. I collected the call record. The court also held the call records. The call records showed I did not call at all.”
At this stage, the Chief Justice curtailed further submissions and observed:
“enough spoken for social media!”
The Bench then referred to an earlier judgment of the Supreme Court while examining the maintainability of the petition. The Court observed:
“The first question we posed to him was as to A judgment dated 12th March 2019, which was rendered by a coordinate bench of this court.”
After considering the submissions, the Bench concluded that the petition was not maintainable and held:
“The petitioner, we are afraid, has not been able to explain about the maintainability of this reputation. The same is in our considered opinion, the reputation is not maintainable.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the Senior Advocate designation system, bringing the proceedings to a close.
Case Title:
Mathews J. Nedumpara vs The Supreme Court of India,
W.P.(C) No. 592/2025
Read Live Coverage:
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Sr Adv Mathews Nedumpara
