The bench, which included Justice BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih, showed reluctance to entertain the petition. As a result, the petitioner, Advocate Sanjay Dubey, chose to withdraw the petition voluntarily.
NEW DELHI: On Friday(31st Jan), the Supreme Court decided not to entertain a petition that challenged the senior designation of 70 advocates by the Delhi High Court. This petition was filed by Advocate Sanjay Dubey, who had applied for the senior designation but was not granted it by the Delhi High Court.
The bench, which included Justice BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih, showed reluctance to entertain the petition. As a result, the petitioner, Advocate Sanjay Dubey, chose to withdraw the petition voluntarily.
The Permanent Committee comprises Chief Justice Manmohan, Justice Vibhu Bakhru, Justice Yashwant Varma, Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, and Senior Advocates Mohit Mathur and Sudhir Nandrajog.
Sources indicate that Nandrajog, who also represents the Delhi government, did not sign the final list circulated to the full court for discussion, as he was occupied with an arbitration during that time. It was further claimed that the final list was altered, and the original list was modified before circulation.
The petition challenged a notification issued on November 29, 2024, where the Delhi High Court had announced the senior designation of 70 advocates. These advocates had been selected by the Permanent Committee of the High Court, which recommended their names for the senior designation.
However, things became complicated when Senior Advocate Sudhir Nandrajog resigned from the committee, citing that the final list of recommendations had been prepared without his consent. This raised concerns about the integrity of the process.
Advocate Dubey’s petition raised several important points, which he believed undermined the fairness of the senior designation process. The following issues were highlighted:
- Violation of Delhi High Court’s Rules:
The petitioner argued that the entire process violated the rules that were notified by the Delhi High Court on March 14, 2024, following the Supreme Court’s judgment in Indira Jaisingh vs. Supreme Court of India. This judgment laid down fresh guidelines for the senior designation process. - Unequal Treatment of Applicants:
The petitioner claimed that he, along with several other applicants, had been treated unfairly and unequally during the designation process. Out of a total of 303 applicants, many, including Dubey, felt that they were not given fair consideration. - Vacancy in the Permanent Committee:
Advocate Dubey highlighted that after Senior Advocate Sudhir Nandrajog resigned from the Permanent Committee, the secretariat proceeded to finalize the recommendations without filling the vacant position. This, according to the petitioner, was against the rules set out for the process. - Lack of Transparency in Marks Assignment:
Another point of contention was the lack of transparency in the marks assigned to applicants who had been called for interviews. The marks were neither made public nor communicated privately to the candidates, which the petitioner claimed was unfair. - Conflict of Interest in Committee Members:
The petitioner also raised concerns about possible conflicts of interest in the Permanent Committee. He pointed out that the President of the Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA), Senior Advocate Mohit Mathur, along with several other members of the DHCBA’s executive committee, had applied for the senior designation. These individuals were, in fact, included in the final list of designated senior advocates. - Eligibility Issues:
The petitioner’s plea further alleged that some of the advocates included in the final list did not meet the age requirement. The guidelines specify that applicants must be at least 40 years old at the time of their application, yet the list included advocates who were below this age limit.
Despite the concerns raised by Advocate Dubey, the Supreme Court bench, led by Justices Gavai and Masih, was not inclined to entertain the petition. The bench made it clear that it would not entertain such a petition. As a result, Advocate Dubey chose to withdraw the case, and the matter ended there.
ALSO READ: Delhi High Court Concludes Historic Selection, 70 Lawyers Conferred Senior Advocate Gowns
The issue of senior designation in India has been a matter of debate over the years. Senior advocates hold a special status in the legal profession, and the process of designating them has often been scrutinized for fairness and transparency. The Delhi High Court’s senior designation process is one of the most high-profile cases in recent times.
Case Title :
SANJAY DUBEY v. THE FULL COURT OF THE HON’BLE JUDGES OF THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI, THROUGH THE REGISTRAR GENERAL & ORS. | Diary No. 3045 / 2025
