The Supreme Court dismissed Advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara’s petition against the Delhi High Court’s designation of 70 Senior Advocates, including J. Sai Deepak. The court upheld the designation’s legitimacy while rejecting claims of discrimination and lack of transparency. The petitioners sought abolition of the Senior Advocate system, citing elitism and favoritism, prompting ongoing debates.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court today dismissed a petition filed by Advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara and others, challenging the Delhi High Court’s designation of 70 advocates as Senior Advocates.
A bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran dismissed the petition outright. The Delhi High Court had conferred the prestigious Senior Advocate title to 71 advocates in November 2024, including engineer-turned-lawyer and author J. Sai Deepak.
In a related move, the Full Court of the Supreme Court designated Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Raghavendra P. Shankar as a Senior Advocate, effective from November 29, 2024.
During the hearing, Justice Gavai firmly defended the judiciary, stating,
“Judges are also human beings. They are trying to do their best. It is not in our hands to appoint more judges.”
Last month, the court had admonished the petitioners for claiming that it was “impossible” to find a constitutional court judge whose relative over the age of 40 had not been designated as a Senior Advocate. The bench had asked the petitioners to amend their plea, warning that “appropriate steps would be taken if the allegations remained.”
Also Read: Supreme Court Upholds Centre’s Decision to Classify Medical Devices as ‘Drugs’
During the hearing, Advocate Nedumpara argued that junior lawyers face discrimination in court. However, Justice Gavai dismissed the claim, stating,
“Lawyers are fearless! We don’t see that anybody gets better treatment in this Court because he has a different gown.”
When Nedumpara attempted to argue further, Justice Gavai firmly stated,
“My practice of not hearing lawyers after an order is passed has not changed. Mr. Nedumpara, wherever it was required, I have apologized to the Bar also.”
The court also refused to examine a list that Nedumpara tried to submit.
The petition contended that the Senior Advocate designation creates a “privileged class” in violation of Articles 14 (Right to Equality), 19 (Right to Practice Profession), and 21 (Right to Life) of the Constitution.
It further alleged:
- The selection process lacks transparency and favors the relatives of judges, senior advocates, and politicians.
- The designation gives certain lawyers “special rights” not available to ordinary advocates.
- The system marginalizes deserving legal practitioners, restricting their professional growth.
“The irregularities and illegalities in the designation of 70 lawyers as Senior Advocates by the Delhi High Court have made it imperative for the Petitioners to challenge the constitutionality of this system,” the petition read.
The petitioners demanded:
- Abolition of the Senior Advocate designation system.
- Reform of the judiciary to eliminate favoritism and elitism.
- Scrapping of the collegium system to promote transparency.
According to them,
“the legal industry has been monopolized by a small group of designated advocates, leaving ordinary practitioners to face discrimination in court.”
The petitioners claimed that their demand for judicial reforms has received strong public backing. They emphasized that the system needs an overhaul to restore the credibility of the judiciary.
Despite the dismissal, the debate over the fairness of Senior Advocate designations and the need for reforms in the legal profession remains ongoing.
Case Title: Shri Mathews J. Nedumpara & Ors. v. The Full Court of the Hon’ble Judges of the High Court of Delhi
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE