The Supreme Court on Thursday, while hearing a petition challenging the Delhi High Court’s decision to designate 70 lawyers as Senior Advocates, reprimanded a lawyer for alleging that relatives of judges were being designated as Senior Advocates by courts.
The Bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan directed the petitioner to remove the allegations from the plea, warning that in case the charges were not removed, the Court would take action against the petitioner.
The top court of the country made these observations, while hearing a petition filed by Advocate Mathews J Nedumpara and others.
During the course of hearing, the Bench asked Advocate Nedumpara whether he could name the judges, whose offspring have been made as seniors.
Nedumpara replied that he had submitted a chart to back his claim. The Counsel further submitted that the Bar was afraid of judges.
Taking exception to the line of arguments, the Bench said this was a court of law and not an ‘azaad maidan’ of Bombay to make such speeches.
Directing the Counsel to make legal arguments and not for the gallery, the Apex Court warned that a lawyer who was signatory to such a petition, was also guilty of contempt.
The Bench then granted time to Nedumpara to reflect on the pleadings and consider whether they needed to be removed.
On November 29, the High Court had conferred the senior gown to 70 lawyers, after interviewing more than 302 candidates, following the new rules under the High Court of Delhi Designation of Senior Advocate Rules, 2024.
As per the new rules under the High Court of Delhi Designation of Senior Advocate Rules, 2024, all matters related to the designation of Senior Advocates would be dealt with by a Permanent Committee.
A list of candidates was prepared by the Secretariat of the Permanent Committee, compiling their data and past records. Apart from the interview component, the Permanent Committee assessed the candidates on several factors such as number of years of practice, pro bono work, publications, etc.
The decision courted controversy after one of the members of the Permanent Committee resigned over claims that the final list was prepared without his consent.
The Permanent Committee consisted of Chief Justice Manmohan, Justice Vibhu Bakhru, Justice Yashwant Varma, Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, and Senior Advocates Mohit Mathur & Sudhir Nandrajog.
As per sources, Nandrajog, also a representative of the Delhi government, did not sign on the final list, which was circulated to the Full Court for deliberation, as he was busy in arbitration for two days.
It was claimed that this was not the list decided upon and that the original list had been tampered with.
The post Supreme Court directs lawyer to amend plea challenging designation of 70 lawyers as Senior Advocates appeared first on India Legal.