A petition has been lodged before the Supreme Court contesting the recent decision by the Delhi High Court to designate 70 lawyers as Senior Advocates. The petition was brought before Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna, who was asked for an urgent listing of the matter. However, the CJI emphasized that oral mentioning would not be permitted, stating, “Please circulate a letter seeking listing. There is no oral mentioning.”
This move follows the Delhi High Court’s announcement on November 29, where it officially conferred the Senior Advocate title to 70 lawyers out of 302 interviewed candidates. This step raised significant questions and sparked controversy among members of the judiciary and legal community.
Petition Filed Against the Designation Process
The senior designation process faced immediate scrutiny after one member of the Permanent Committee, responsible for preparing the final list, resigned in protest. The resignation came amid allegations that the list was finalized without his consent.
The Permanent Committee, which played a key role in this designation process, consists of several prominent figures, including Chief Justice Manmohan, Justice Vibhu Bakhru, Justice Yashwant Varma, Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, and Senior Advocates Mohit Mathur and Sudhir Nandrajog. The controversy centers on claims that the final list that was presented for the full court’s approval had been altered, deviating from the original list that the committee had intended.
Allegations of Procedural Issues
Sources close to the matter have indicated that Senior Advocate Sudhir Nandrajog, who also represents the Delhi government, did not sign off on the final list. His absence was reportedly due to his engagement in an arbitration matter that spanned two days. This absence has led to allegations that the final list had been changed without proper consensus from all committee members.
The accusations suggest that the original list, which was presumably more thoroughly vetted and approved by the committee, was tampered with or modified before it reached the full court for consideration. These developments have added further complexity to an already contentious process, raising questions about the integrity of the designation procedure and the fairness of the process involved.
Implications for the Legal Community
The petition filed in the Supreme Court not only seeks to challenge the validity of the senior designations but also casts a spotlight on the procedural transparency and decision-making within the Delhi High Court. The outcome of this legal challenge could have significant implications for future designations of Senior Advocates and could potentially instigate a review of how such decisions are made and approved in the judiciary.
Legal experts and members of the bar have been closely following the case, as it underscores broader issues related to judicial appointments and the safeguarding of procedural integrity within the legal system. The Supreme Court’s response to the petition and any subsequent ruling could set a precedent for handling similar disputes in the future.
