SC Irked ‘Scurrilous’ Remarks Against Judges In Senior Designation Plea

The Supreme Court of India on Thursday sharply criticized a petition that made “scurrilous & unfounded allegations” against judges regarding the conferment of senior designations to lawyers.

During the hearing, Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan questioned advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara, who represented the petitioners. They asked, “Can you name any judges whose children have been designated as senior counsel?” This question was in response to remarks in the petition, which included a claim that it was nearly impossible to find a sitting or retired judge whose family members—such as children or siblings over the age of 40 remained regular lawyers.

The bench expressed concern over the “insinuations” made in the petition, saying, “We find that various scurrilous, unfounded allegations have been made against the institution.” The petition had criticized the legal community for what it described as nepotism and favoritism, suggesting that only those with powerful family connections could rise to the status of senior counsel.

Nedumpara, who had filed the petition along with several other practicing lawyers, argued that the senior designation system created a two-tier hierarchy that was unfair and detrimental to the legal profession. However, his argument was met with sharp rebuke from the bench. Justice Gavai reminded him, “This is a court of law, not a boat club or Azad Maidan in Bombay for speeches. When you address this court, you should present legal arguments, not statements meant for the gallery.”

The court also offered Nedumpara the chance to amend the petition. “If you do not amend the petition, we may take appropriate steps as necessary,” the bench warned. It also asked for clarity regarding the future course of the case. “Are you going to delete these allegations or not? Be clear about whether you want to proceed with these statements or not,” the bench said.

The petitioners were given four weeks to consider their position and decide on any amendments to the petition.

The petition challenges the provisions under the Advocates Act, particularly Sections 16 & 23, which it argues create an unconstitutional division between senior advocates and other lawyers. The petitioners claim that this distinction results in severe inequities and privileges for a select group of lawyers, contradicting the principles of equality enshrined in the Constitution. They argue that such a system not only harms the legal profession but also undermines fairness and justice.

Additionally, the petition calls for the quashing of a recent decision by the Delhi High Court, which conferred senior designations on approximately 70 lawyers, further exacerbating concerns about favoritism and inequality within the legal community.

Read More: Rahul Gandhi Defamation Case: Sultanpur Court Cross-Examines Plaintiff, Next Hearing On Jan 10