Earlier, the Bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan observed that the petition made “various scurrilous, unfounded allegations” against the judiciary.
NEW DELHI: Today, 29th April: Advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara recently brought a major petition before the Supreme Court, questioning the current collegium system of judicial appointments and the designation of Senior Advocates.
During the hearing, many serious issues were raised about favoritism, nepotism, and elitism within the judiciary and the legal profession.
Appearing in person, Nedumpara passionately argued that reforms are urgently needed. He said,
“We are seeing what is happening. Please see what is happening. CJI Chandrachud was requested to list it thrice. But still.. people of this country. NJAC is needed ..”
However, Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna immediately cautioned him, saying,
“Please do not put words in my mouth. Do not make a political speech here.”
Previous Hearing
The Bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan observed that the petition made “various scurrilous, unfounded allegations” against the judiciary.
They stated:
“Taking note of the averments, we find that various scurrilous, unfounded allegations have been made against the institution. We could have proceeded further with the matter today itself. However, Shri. Nedumpara, who has not only drafted the petition but also signed the petition, states that the petition has come up all of a sudden and would like to have some time to reflect upon it and consult all the other petitioners are to what recourse is to be taken. We grant four weeks time to the Nedumpara and the other petitioners.”
At the start of the hearing, Nedumpara said:
“India, today, has approximately 14 lakh lawyers, of which 1% is designated as senior advocates. The legal profession is an industry today. There is no gain in denying it. The 95 per cent of the revenue from this industry is monopolised by this 1%. And this 1% is only a few scores of families. In certain families, every member is a designated senior. It is difficult, if not impossible, to find a judge sitting or retired of the High Court or Supreme Court who has his offspring, brother, sister, or nephew who has crossed the age of forty remaining to be a plebeian lawyer.”
Justice Gavai asked Nedumpara:
“How many judges can you name whose offsprings have been designated as Senior Counsels?”
To this, Nedumpara replied:
“We have a chart; we will give that.”
Justice Gavai again pointed out:
“You are putting an impression on all the judges, not just a single judge…How many can you find?”
Nedumpara reassured the Court:
“We have prepared a chart. We will give that. In fact, we did not expect that this petition would come up so fast. We had prepared a chart in 2015. We have prepared a chart for the entire judiciary and the judges also. The chart has to be updated; my friends were doing it; the matter got listed up too soon. We will complete that chart.”
Justice Gavai then clarified:
“We will grant you permission to amend the petition. If you want, if you don’t want to amend the petition. We may take steps that we find necessary.”
Nedumpara informed the court that there are 20 petitioners involved, and they would need to be consulted. But Justice Gavai stressed:
“We are not bothered about the 20 petitioners. That is why the first question we asked was, Who is the signatory to the petition? Who has drafted the petition? And who has sworn the petition.”
Nedumpara answered simply:
“I, myself.”
The Bench asked him to clearly decide:
“Therefore, you decide whether you want to make any modifications in the averments; you want to withdraw or you want to continue with it?”
Nedumpara then expressed his concern:
“I don’t understand, why the Bar is so scared of the judges? Why? What is the need?”
Justice Gavai reminded him:
“Mr. Nedumpara, this is a court of law, not a club or a …maidan in Bombay to make speeches. So, when you address a court of law, make legal arguments, not arguments only for the purpose of gallery.”
The court also noted that Petitioner No. 12 wanted to withdraw from the petition, and this was allowed.
Justice Viswanathan added a warning:
“Make up your mind. You file data. Be very clear whether you want to carry on with the same averments. We have a chart of your averments. If the petition comes in the same form, action against each one of the petitioners will be taken in accordance with law. Be very very clear about it.”
Justice Gavai further explained:
“We don’t want that. We want to say that you would like to reflect upon it.”
Nedumpara replied:
“That is always. I am not saying that.”
Justice Gavai warned again:
“A lawyer who is a signatory to such pleadings is also guilty of contempt.”
In their petition, the petitioners argue that the designation of Senior Advocates creates a privileged class of lawyers with special rights, violating the principles of equality under Article 14, the right to practice under Article 19, and the right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
ALSO READ: [EXCLUSIVE] Abolition of Collegium System | CJI Led Bench Refuses to List the Plea
They said the Delhi High Court’s recent designation of 70 Senior Advocates showed how favoritism and nepotism dominate the process.
According to the petition,
“The irregularities and illegalities alleged to have occasioned in the process of designation of 70 lawyers by the Delhi High Court as Senior Advocates has made it imperative for the Petitioners to seek a declaration that the designation of advocates as senior advocates u/s. 16 and 23(5) of the Advocates Act, 1961, as well as under Rule 2 of Chapter-IV of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, creating a special class of advocates with special rights, privileges and status not available to ordinary advocates, is unconstitutional, being violative of the mandate of equality under Article 14 and the right to practice any profession under Article 19, as well as the right to life under Article 21.”
The petition accused the system of being unfair:
“Such designation has created a class of advocates with special rights, and the same has been seen as reserved only for the kith and kin of judges and senior advocates, politicians, ministers, etc., resulting in the legal industry being monopolised by a small cabal of ‘designated’ advocates, leaving the vast majority of meritorious law practitioners as ordinary plebeians receiving discriminatory treatment in the Courts.”
The petition highlights how the justice delivery system is suffering, with constitutional remedies under Articles 226 and 32 becoming weaker and losing their effectiveness.
The petitioners demand that both the Senior Advocate designation system and the collegium system should be abolished. They believe this will make the judiciary more democratic and restore public faith.
Finally, the petitioners stressed that the public, legal professionals, and litigants support their cause. They believe the time for major reforms has arrived, saying that these changes represent
“an idea whose time has come.”
They hope that the Supreme Court will hear their voice for equality, fairness, and transparency.
