The Supreme Court today dismissed a petition filed by Advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara and others challenging the designation of 70 advocates as senior advocates by the Delhi High Court.

It is to be noted that in November 2024, the Delhi High Court had conferred Senior Advocate designation to 71 Advocates, including engineer turned Advocate and author J. Sai Deepak. In a separate but related development, the Full Court of the Supreme Court designated Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Raghavendra P. Shankar as Senior Advocate with effect from November 29, 2024. He was notified as an ASG on September 9 by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet of the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions (Department of Personnel & Training).

The Bench of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran dismissed the petition.

Earlier, last month,the Court had pulled up the petitioners for alleging that it was "impossible" to find a constitutional court judge whose relative over the age of 40 had not been designated as a senior advocate. Expressing strong disapproval, the bench had asked whether the petitioners wished to amend their petition, warning that if the allegations remained in their current form, the court would take appropriate steps in accordance with the law.

During the hearing today, Justice Gavai remarked, "Judges are also human beings. They are trying to do their best. It is not in our hands to appoint more judges."

Advocate Nedumpara appearing in person, claimed that lawyers feared the Court, to which Justice Gavai responded, "Lawyers are fearless! We don’t see that anybody gets better treatment in this Court because he has a different gown."

Nedumpara further argued that junior lawyers often struggle with perception bias in Court.

However, the Bench remained unconvinced and promptly dismissed the petition.

As Nedumpara attempted to continue his arguments post-dismissal, Justice Gavai stated firmly, "My practice of not hearing lawyers after an order is passed has not changed. Mr. Nedumpara, wherever it was required, I have apologized to the Bar also."

The Bench also refused to look into a list that Nedumpara attempted to hand over to the Bench.

About the Petition

The petitioners in the Writ have argued that the designation system creates a privileged class of advocates with special rights, violating the principles of equality under Article 14, the right to practice any profession under Article 19, and the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. "The irregularities and illegalities alleged to have occasioned in the process of designation of 70 lawyers by the Delhi High Court as Senior Advocates has made it imperative for the Petitioners to seek a declaration that the designation of advocates as senior advocates u/s. 16 and 23(5) of the Advocates Act, 1961, as well as under Rule 2 of Chapter-IV of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, creating a special class of advocates with special rights, privileges and status not available to ordinary advocates, is unconstitutional, being violative of the mandate of equality under Article 14 and the right to practice any profession under Article 19, as well as the right to life under Article 21," the petition stated.

The petition filed by Advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara has alleged irregularities in the recent designation of 70 lawyers as Senior Advocates by the Delhi High Court, claiming that the process perpetuates favouritism, nepotism, and elitism. They contend that the system reserves such designations predominantly for individuals connected to judges, senior advocates, politicians, and ministers, thereby monopolizing the legal profession and marginalizing the majority of meritorious advocates.

"Such designation has created a class of advocates with special rights, and the same has been seen as reserved only for the kith and kin of judges and senior advocates, politicians, ministers, etc., resulting in the legal industry being monopolised by a small cabal of ‘designated’ advocates, leaving the vast majority of meritorious law practitioners as ordinary plebeians receiving discriminatory treatment in the Courts," the petition read.

Call for Abolishing Privilege-Based Systems

The petitioners have criticized the designation of Senior Advocates, stating that it fosters discrimination against ordinary advocates, who are subjected to unequal treatment in courtrooms. The petition underscores the monopolization of the legal profession by a small, privileged group, which it claims undermines the principle of equality and fair competition in the justice delivery system.

The petition also highlights the alleged collapse of the justice delivery system, arguing that constitutional remedies under Articles 226 and 32 have lost their original effectiveness and are often reduced to "face value" jurisdiction. The petition advocates for a comprehensive overhaul of the system, including the abolition of the Senior Advocate designation and the collegium system, to address elitism and restore the judiciary’s credibility.

Public Support for Reforms

According to the petitioners, their call for reforms has garnered significant support from the public, legal professionals, and litigants. They expressed confidence that these reforms represent "an idea whose time has come" and that substantive changes in the judiciary are inevitable.

The petition seeks a declaration that the designation of Senior Advocates under the Advocates Act, 1961, and the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, is unconstitutional. It further calls for abolishing the Senior Advocate designation system and the collegium system to democratize the judiciary and promote equality within the legal profession.

Cause Title: Shri Mathews J. Nedumpara & Ors. v. The Full Court of the Hon'ble Judges of the High Court of Delhi [Diary No. 60205/2024]

Justice BR GavaiJustice K. Vinod ChandranAdvocates Act of 1961Senior Advocate Designation

Sukriti Mishra

    Sukriti Mishra was a Legal Correspondent at Verdictum. She covered the Supreme Court. She completed her graduation with BA. LL.B (Hons.) from The ICFAI University, Dehradun. Sukriti started covering courts in March 2022. She had previously worked with another legal news portal, where she covered the Delhi High Court and Trial Courts.