Judges Will Only Designate Kith And Kin: Read "Progeny List" Handed Over To Apex Court By Advocate Mathews Nedumpara In Senior Designation Case
Advocate Nedumpara had earlier filed the same list in a writ petition seeking a declaration that Senior Advocate designations under the Advocates Act, 1961, and Supreme Court Rules, 2013, are unconstitutional. However, the Court had dismissed the petition and refused to look into the list.
Advocate Matthews Nedumpara today appeared in person and made submissions before the three-judge bench hearing the matters relating to the process of designating Senior Advocates.
Though he attempted to argue against the constitutionality of Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961, the Bench did not permit him to do so, stating that it is beyond the purview of the matter being heard by it.
During the hearing, Nedumpara handed over to the Court, a list, which according to him, shows nepotism in the matter of appointment of judges of higher judiciary and he argued that the same will be the result if judges decide who should be conferred senior designation.
A Bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti concluded the hearing today and reserved the matter for judgment.
The matter was also heard yesterday when Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for the Supreme Court made his submissions regarding the Permanent Committee and the secret ballot system for designating Senior Advocates.
"Entire Section 16(1) and Section 23(5) of the Advocates Act is unconstitutional," Nedumpara argued today. However, the Bench made it clear that it was not hearing the constitutional validity of Section 16 in this case. "The issue is confined only to reconsideration of the two judgments... we will not permit you to argue on the constitutional validity of Section 16," the bench said.
Nedumpara insisted, "There is no estoppel against law." The Court responded, "If you want, we will pass a specific order that we are not permitting you to argue on constitutional validity of Section 16... not the issue involved in this." The Court further warned him, "Mr. Nedumpara, we are putting you to notice. You have to argue on the issue that arises in this case and not on the validity of Section 16 etc... we will not permit you to do that."
Raising concerns over the alleged lack of awareness among lawyers about the ongoing hearing, Nedumpara remarked, "Except a few lawyers here, nobody knew that matters are listed here. When Parliament enacts a law, we are all symbolically present. When your Lordships decide a matter... the eminent lawyers who raised these issues had only in their mind the point of view of lawyers and judges."
The Court responded to his submissions, saying, "Alright, alright, we understand. Mr. Nedumpara always canvasses the voice of the common man. Now, what is the perception of the man that you represent?"
Nedumpara responded, "Lawyers outside Delhi and Bombay are not aware of it... there is a world outside Delhi... These issues cannot be decided in a hurry... there are Bars in different parts of the country... the real stakeholder is the litigant... they should come to know."
He argued that the present system of a committee screening the candidates is not good and also argued that earlier system where only judges were involved in the decision-making is equally bad.
He argued, "This system has led to the subordination of the Bar. Now there is a committee... I believe the Solicitor General said, and I completely agree with it, that this only leads to canvassing, I have seen it in Kerala... certainly not acceptable. Then what is the solution?... what was the scenario before... the judges themselves anoint... These are statistics..."
He then hands over the "progeny list" to the Court. The list had been produced by him along with an affidavit in his petition filed recently before the Supreme Court challenging the Delhi High Court’s designation of 70 advocates as Senior Advocates. In that petition, he had produced the same alleging nepotism in judicial appointments, asserting that there exists a “dynasty in judicial appointments.” The Court had dismissed his petition. (read report)
The Court asked, "This affidavit is filed not in this case?"
Nedumpara replied, "I only want to show the chart. I am not saying it is absolutely correct. There may be some minor mistakes."
The Court responded, "We are not deciding who becomes a judge."
Nedumpara replied, "No, the point is, the judges are now allowed to designate... that was the practice before 2017. I was convicted for contempt of court for saying that in the system where judges designate themselves, they only designate their kith and kin. I was convicted for contempt of court for speaking the truth. Nobody is more hated than the one who speaks the truth... This chart establishes that going back to 2017 will do no good."
He concluded by submitting that the system is beyond reformation and that, "There is no other option but to declare Sections 16 and 23 of the Advocates Act as violative of fundamental rights under Article 14."
While concluding the hearing, the Court directed all parties to submit a brief summary of submissions.
Cause Title: Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt.) Of NCT of Delhi & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No.865/2025)
Read 'Progeny List' handed over by Advocate Nedumpara
