Today, On 2nd January, The Supreme Court granted time to Mathews Nedumpara to reflect on his plea challenging the designation of Senior Advocates. Nedumpara had made various strong allegations against the institution, which the court described as “scurrilous averments.” The court asked him to reconsider his petition, allowing time for reflection. This matter involves a legal challenge to the process of conferring Senior Advocate status.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court today granted Advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara four weeks to reflect on his writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution.
The petition challenges the process of designating advocates as Senior Advocates under Sections 16 and 23(5) of the Advocates Act, 1961, as well as Rule 2 of Chapter IV of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. It’s noteworthy that in November 2024, the Delhi High Court designated 71 advocates, including engineer-turned-advocate and author J. Sai Deepak, as Senior Advocates.
Additionally, the Full Court of the Supreme Court designated Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Raghavendra P. Shankar as a Senior Advocate effective November 29, 2024. He had been notified as an ASG on September 9 by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet of the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions.
During the proceedings, Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan remarked,
“Taking note of the averments, we find that various scurrilous, unfounded allegations have been made against the institution. We could have proceeded with the matter today. However, Mr. Nedumpara, who has not only drafted but also signed the petition, states that it has come up unexpectedly and wishes to consult with the other petitioners regarding the next steps. We grant four weeks to Mr. Nedumpara and the other petitioners.”
At the outset, Advocate Nedumpara, representing himself, noted,
“India currently has approximately 1.4 million lawyers, with only 1% designated as Senior Advocates. The legal profession has become an industry, and denying this is futile. This 1% monopolizes 95% of the revenue from this sector, and many of them are from a handful of families where every member is a designated senior. It’s extremely rare, if not impossible, to find a sitting or retired judge of the High Court or Supreme Court whose family members, past the age of forty, remain ordinary lawyers.”
In response, Justice Gavai asked,
“How many judges can you name whose offspring have been designated as Senior Counsels?”
Nedumpara replied,
“We have a chart that we will provide.”
Justice Gavai continued,
“You are implying this about all judges, not just one. How many can you find?”
Nedumpara stated,
“We prepared a chart in 2015 covering the entire judiciary, but it needs updating. We didn’t anticipate this petition would be heard so promptly.”
Justice Gavai clarified,
“We will allow you to amend the petition. If you choose not to amend, we may still take necessary steps.”
Nedumpara indicated that there are twenty petitioners who need to be communicated with regarding the proceedings.
Justice Gavai responded,
“We’re not concerned with the twenty petitioners. That’s why we initially asked who is the signatory, who drafted the petition, and who swore the petition.”
Nedumpara replied,
“I did.”
The Bench then stated,
“Therefore, you need to decide whether you want to amend the petition, withdraw it, or continue as is.”
Nedumpara remarked,
“I don’t understand why the Bar is so intimidated by the judges. Why is that?”
Justice Gavai replied,
“Mr. Nedumpara, this is a court of law, not a club or a field in Bombay for speeches. When addressing a court, focus on legal arguments, not just statements for the gallery.”
The Court noted that petitioner number 12 wishes to withdraw from the petition, and this was permitted.
After further discussion, Justice Viswanathan urged,
“Make a decision. File your data clearly and decide if you want to maintain the same claims. We have a record of your assertions. If the petition is submitted in its current form, legal action will be taken against each petitioner accordingly. Be very clear about this.”
Justice Gavai added,
“We don’t want that. We want to know that you wish to reflect on it.”
Nedumpara affirmed,
“That is always the case; I’m not disputing that.”
Justice Gavai further stated,
“A lawyer who signs such pleadings may also be found guilty of contempt.”
In the writ petition, the petitioners argue that the designation system creates a privileged class of advocates with special rights, violating the equality principles under Article 14, the right to practice any profession under Article 19, and the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
They claim,
“The irregularities and illegalities alleged in the process of designating 70 lawyers as Senior Advocates by the Delhi High Court necessitate a declaration that this designation under Sections 16 and 23(5) of the Advocates Act, 1961, and Rule 2 of Chapter IV of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, is unconstitutional. It creates a special class of advocates with rights and privileges not available to ordinary advocates, violating the mandate of equality.”
The petition filed by Advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara alleges irregularities in the recent designation of 70 lawyers as Senior Advocates, claiming the process perpetuates favoritism, nepotism, and elitism.
The petitioners contend that such designations are predominantly reserved for those connected to judges, senior advocates, politicians, and ministers, monopolizing the legal profession and marginalizing deserving advocates.
“This designation has created a class of advocates with special rights, often reserved for the relatives of judges and senior advocates, resulting in a legal industry dominated by a small group of ‘designated’ advocates, while the majority of qualified practitioners are treated as ordinary plebeians facing discrimination in the courts.”
The petitioners criticize the Senior Advocate designation, arguing that it fosters discrimination against ordinary advocates, who face unequal treatment in courtrooms. They highlight the monopolization of the legal profession by a privileged few, undermining the principles of equality and fair competition within the justice system.
Additionally, the petition points to a perceived collapse in the justice delivery system, asserting that constitutional remedies under Articles 226 and 32 have lost their effectiveness and are often reduced to mere “face value” jurisdiction. It advocates for a comprehensive modify of the system, including abolishing the Senior Advocate designation and the collegium system, to combat elitism and restore the credibility of the judiciary.
According to the petitioners, their call for reforms has gained significant public support, including from legal professionals and litigants. They express confidence that these reforms represent “an idea whose time has come” and believe that substantial changes in the judiciary are inevitable.
The petition seeks a declaration that the Senior Advocate designation under the Advocates Act, 1961, and the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, is unconstitutional, and calls for the abolition of this designation system and the collegium system to democratize the judiciary and promote equality within the legal profession.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
