Today, On 9th December, Supreme Court dismissed a plea claiming the Delhi High Court had not reconsidered senior designation applications, saying there was no reason to assume any inordinate delay because the High Court was expected to comply with the Supreme Court judgment.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court dismissed a petition that argued the Delhi High Court had not adhered to the top court’s previous directive to reconsider the applications of lawyers whose names were either rejected or deferred during last year’s senior designation process.
The bench, consisting of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, expressed concern over the petition’s filing by a lawyer.
CJI Kant stated,
“We do not expect members of the bar to generate litigation. Don’t file these kinds of petitions. The Chief Justice committee is aware of it.”
The Court noted that most High Courts have either adopted or are in the process of modifying their rules for senior designations in line with the Supreme Court’s rulings.
Also Read: Behind the Gown: The Rigorous Process of Senior Advocate Designation
The Court concluded,
“We have no reason to believe that there will be inordinate delay by HC to comply with SC judgment. Dismissed,”
Earlier, In April, a bench led by Justice Abhay S Oka (now retired) and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan instructed the Delhi High Court to reconsider the applications of lawyers whose names were either rejected or deferred during the previous year’s senior designation process.
This order stemmed from a plea by advocate Raman Gandhi, who sought to overturn the Delhi High Court’s November 2024 decision to grant senior designation to only 70 out of 302 interviewed candidates, while deferring the cases of 67 others.
The petition was prompted by controversy surrounding the resignation of Senior Advocate Sudhir Nandrajog, a member of the Permanent Committee, who claimed the final list was compiled without his agreement.
The Permanent Committee is responsible for shortlisting candidates for senior designation, after which the full court makes the final decision.
This process is outlined in the Supreme Court’s 2017 ruling in the case of Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court.