Supreme Court Slams Delhi HC Permanent Committee Over Senior Advocate Selection Process

The Supreme Court Yesterday (Feb 24) questioned the Delhi High Court’s permanent committee for exceeding its role in selecting Senior Advocates, highlighting procedural lapses and potential rule violations.

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

Supreme Court Slams Delhi HC Permanent Committee Over Senior Advocate Selection Process – Major Irregularities Exposed!

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India on Monday raised questions about the way the Delhi High Court‘s permanent committee selected Senior Advocates.

A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan said that the permanent committee should only give marks to applicants and should not suggest names for Senior Advocate designation. The Supreme Court clarified that selecting Senior Advocates is the responsibility of the full court of the High Court.

ALSO READ: Supreme Court Flags Issues in Senior Advocate Designation, Refers Matter to CJI: “We Mean No Disrespect Towards the Two Binding Decisions”

The case before the Supreme Court was about a petition that challenged the appointment of 70 lawyers as Senior Advocates by the Delhi High Court. There were allegations that one of the permanent committee members, Senior Advocate Sudhir Nandrajog, had not agreed to the final list before it was approved.

Earlier, on February 25, the Supreme Court had asked the Delhi High Court’s Registrar General and Sudhir Nandrajog to respond to this issue.

The Court also asked for the permanent committee’s report to be submitted in a sealed cover.

After looking at the report, Justice Oka pointed out that the permanent committee had gone beyond its authority by recommending names. He referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India, which clearly defines the committee’s role.

“By which law committee can recommend? In Indira Jaising, there is no power to recommend. It is only to assign points,”

-Justice Oka said.

He stressed that the permanent committee’s job is only to give marks, and all applications should go to the full court without recommendations.

The Supreme Court also referred to its recent decision in Jitender Kalla, where it had clearly said that the permanent committee’s role ends after giving points. It cannot evaluate applicants beyond that.

The controversy started when Sudhir Nandrajog claimed that he was not consulted before the final list of Senior Advocates was published.

According to sources, Nandrajog, who also represents the Delhi government, did not sign the final list before it was sent to the full court. He was reportedly busy with an arbitration case at that time. There were also claims that the original list had been changed before being finalized.

ALSO READ: Supreme Court Petition Challenges Delhi High Court’s Senior Advocate Designation Process

During the hearing on Monday, Nandrajog explained the timeline of events. He said that the interview process was completed on November 19, 2024, and a draft list of designated Senior Advocates was circulated on November 25, 2024, by the then Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court. However, a follow-up meeting scheduled for December 2, 2024, never took place, which raised concerns about the process.

“The interview process ended on November 19, and thereafter, a meeting was held on November 25, during which a draft list was circulated by the then Chief Justice. Another meeting was to be held on December 2, but it never took place,”

-he told the Court.

When the Court was informed that similar petitions had been dismissed earlier, Justice Oka asked whether the issue of the permanent committee’s limited powers had been raised in those cases.

“Was this issue agitated in that? That the committee has no power to recommend? The committee can only make a point-based assessment. It is ultimately the decision of the full court,”

-he asked.

The Court also pointed out concerns about the number of members in the permanent committee. It appeared that the committee had six members, which does not match the guidelines set in Indira Jaising regarding Senior Advocate designations.

“How many members are there in the Permanent Committee? The direction is to frame rules in terms of the Indira Jaising judgment. There can’t be six members in the committee,”

-the Court observed.

ALSO READ: Supreme Court Recommends 5 Advocates for Patna High Court Judgeship – Big Decision by Collegium!

The bench also wanted clarification about the “deferred list,” which contained names of candidates whose Senior Advocate designation was postponed for later consideration. The Court asked the Delhi High Court’s counsel to check whether the Indira Jaising judgment allows deferring candidates in this way.

The Supreme Court directed the Delhi High Court to address these issues and confirm whether its rules match the Supreme Court’s guidelines on Senior Advocate designations.

The next hearing will take place after Sudhir Nandrajog submits his affidavit and the Delhi High Court provides a detailed response.