A Supreme Court writ petition challenges the Delhi High Court’s designation of 70 advocates as Senior Advocates. Advocate Sanjay Dubey argues that the process violated guidelines from the Indira Jaisingh case, unfairly treated applicants, lacked transparency, involved conflicts of interest, and included ineligible advocates. The petition seeks stricter adherence to designation rules.
New Delhi: A writ petition has been filed before the Supreme Court challenging the designation of 70 advocates as Senior Advocates by the Delhi High Court. The plea, filed by Advocate Sanjay Dubey, seeks to quash the notification issued on November 29, 2024, citing multiple alleged irregularities in the designation process.
The notification in question was issued based on recommendations by the ‘Permanent Commission,’ which included Chief Justice Manmohan, Justice Vibhu Bakhru, Justice Yashwant Varma, Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, Senior Advocate Sudhir Nandrajog, and Senior Advocate Mohit Mathur. However, Senior Advocate Nandrajog later resigned, claiming that the final list was prepared without his consent.
Also Read: ‘Punjab Panchayat Polls Case’: Supreme Court Seeks State’s & Election Commission Response
The petitioner has raised the following key arguments challenging the process:
- Violation of Guidelines in the Indira Jaisingh Case
The petitioner alleges that the designation process violated rules notified on March 14, 2024, by the Delhi High Court. These rules were formulated following the Supreme Court’s guidelines in the landmark Indira Jaisingh vs. Supreme Court of India judgment, which set new standards for Senior Advocate designations. - Unfair Treatment of Applicants
The plea claims that the petitioner and several other candidates from the 303 applicants were treated unfairly during the selection process. - Resignation of Permanent Committee Member
After Senior Advocate Sudhir Nandrajog resigned from the Permanent Committee due to alleged irregularities, the committee finalized recommendations without filling the vacancy. The plea highlights:”Upon resignation of one of the members from the ‘Permanent Committee’… there existed no committee in the eyes of the law, which could have made a recommendation to the Full Court of Delhi High Court for designation of Advocates as Senior Advocates.”
The petitioner further alleges that recommendations mentioning Nandrajog’s name were neither signed nor approved by him.
- Lack of Transparency in Marks Allocation
Marks assigned to applicants during the interview stage were neither publicly disclosed nor privately communicated, raising questions about transparency. - Conflict of Interest and Nepotism Allegations
The plea alleges that members of the Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA), including its President, Mohit Mathur, were part of the Permanent Committee while also being candidates for designation. Additionally, the list allegedly includes advocates related to current sitting High Court judges. - Violation of Age Criteria
It is claimed that the final list includes advocates who had not reached the mandatory 40-year age limit at the time of application, further breaching eligibility rules.
The petition calls for strict adherence to the rules and greater transparency in the designation process to ensure fairness. The matter now awaits scrutiny by the Supreme Court.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE