On February 17, the Supreme Court issued a notice on the plea challenging the High Court’s November 2024 designations.
NEW DELHI: 4th April: The Supreme Court of India has suggested that the Delhi High Court should reconstitute its committee for Senior Advocate designations and conduct the process again.
This new process should also include candidates whose applireconstitute its Senior Advocate design committeecations were rejected or deferred in the last round of selections in November 2024.
A bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan made this suggestion while hearing a plea filed by Advocate Raman Gandhi. The plea challenged the Delhi High Court’s decision to designate 70 lawyers as Senior Advocates in November 2024.
The High Court had interviewed 302 lawyers before finalizing the list.
During the hearing, the Supreme Court observed:
“We are suggesting that (with respect to) deferred candidates and rejected candidates, committee will do the fresh exercise in terms of Indira Jaising judgement. This is the understanding. Fresh process has to be conducted by reconstituting the committee.”
The Court directed the lawyer representing the Delhi High Court to seek instructions and posted the matter for further hearing on April 15.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court To Hear Plea Next Week Challenging 70 Senior Advocate Designations
“Counsel appearing for the High Court to take instructions. List on 15th,” the Bench ordered.
The controversy arose after Senior Advocate Sudhir Nandrajog, a member of the Delhi High Court’s Permanent Committee, resigned. He claimed that the final list of designated lawyers was prepared without his consent.
The Permanent Committee is responsible for shortlisting candidates before sending the list to the full court, which takes the final decision. This procedure follows the guidelines set by the Supreme Court in the 2017 landmark judgment Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court.
The committee includes:
- Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya
- Justice Vibhu Bakhru
- Justice Yashwant Varma
- Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma
- Senior Advocate Mohit Mathur
- Senior Advocate Sudhir Nandrajog
According to sources, Nandrajog, who also represents the Delhi government, did not sign the final list as he was engaged in an arbitration matter at the time. It was alleged that the final list presented for approval was not the same as the one initially decided upon, raising concerns about possible tampering.
On February 17, the Supreme Court issued a notice on the plea challenging the High Court’s November 2024 designations. The Court asked the Delhi High Court’s Registrar General to respond and also submit a copy of the Senior Designation Committee’s report in a sealed cover.
The Court also sought a response from Nandrajog, who had resigned from the committee. He later submitted his reply in a sealed cover.
During the latest hearing, the lawyer representing the Delhi High Court informed the Supreme Court that the issue would be reconsidered by the full court.
“The High Court will reconsider in full court. There are 71. The HC considered 70 and one is left out,” the lawyer said.
However, the petitioner’s counsel countered this claim, stating that applications of 67 candidates were deferred.
To resolve the issue fairly, the Supreme Court suggested that both the rejected and deferred candidates be reconsidered through a fresh process.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court To Hear Plea Next Week Challenging 70 Senior Advocate Designations
The Supreme Court urged the Delhi High Court to settle the issue internally rather than forcing the apex court to scrutinize the entire procedural details.
“If all of you wish to go into the procedure followed, we are prepared to go,” the top court cautioned.
Case Title – Raman Alias Raman Gandhi v. Registrar General, High Court of Delhi| W.P.(C) No. 61/2025
