LawChakra

Supreme Court To Hear Plea Next Week Challenging 70 Senior Advocate Designations

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

The petition, filed by Mumbai-based lawyer Mathew J. Nedumpara, contends that the process of designating lawyers as senior advocates is marred by “favouritism, nepotism, patronage, and other unlawful or extraneous factors.”

New Delhi: The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear a plea next week challenging the entire process by which the Delhi High Court designated 70 lawyers as senior advocates.

According to the causelist available on the apex court’s website, a bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan will hear the matter on January 2, 2025.

The petition, filed by Mumbai-based lawyer Mathew J. Nedumpara, contends that the process of designating lawyers as senior advocates is marred by “favouritism, nepotism, patronage, and other unlawful or extraneous factors.”

It further argues that the distinct dress code for senior advocates creates an unjust classification, akin to apartheid, and violates Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India.

The list of lawyers designated as senior advocates includes Santosh Tripathi, Anurag Ahluwalia, Rajdipa Behura, Anil Soni, Anupam Srivastava, Abhijat, Sumeet Verma, Amit Chadha, Sumeet Pushkarna, Sai Deepak J., and Arundhati Katju.

In October last year, the Supreme Court dismissed a petition challenging the system of senior advocate designation under the Advocates Act, 1961.

A bench comprising Justices S.K. Kaul (now retired) and Sudhanshu Dhulia held that the practice could not be deemed unreasonable under Article 14.

“We dismiss the petition without imposing costs,” the bench stated, adding that the plea, filed by petitioner-in-person Nedumpara, amounted to a “misadventure.”

Nedumpara’s earlier plea argued that the senior designation system created a privileged class of advocates with exclusive rights, allegedly reserved for the relatives of judges, senior advocates, politicians, and ministers.

The petition also challenged the validity of Sections 16 and 23(5) of the Advocates Act, 1961, and the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, asserting that these provisions violate the principles of equality under Article 14, the right to practice any profession under Article 19, and the right to life under Article 21.

FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE

Exit mobile version