"Various Scurrilous Averments Made Against Institution": SC Grants Time To Mathews Nedumpara To Reflect On His Plea Challenging Designation Of Senior Advocates

The Supreme Court today granted Advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara four weeks time to reflect on his writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, challenging the process of designating advocates as Senior Advocates under Sections 16 and 23(5) of the Advocates Act, 1961, and Rule 2 of Chapter IV of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.

It is to be noted that in November 2024, the Delhi High Court has 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 BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan said, "Taking note of the averments, we find that various scurrilous, unfounded allegations have been made against the institution. We could have proceeded further with the matter today itself. However, Shri. Nedumpara, who has not only drafted the petition but also signed the petition, states that the petition has come up all of a sudden and would like to have some time to reflect upon it and consult all the other petitioners are to what recourse is to be taken. We grant four weeks time to the Nedumpara and the other petitioners".

At the outset, Advocate Nedumpara, appearing in person, submitted, "India, today, has approximately 14 lakh lawyers, of which 1% is designated as senior advocates. The legal profession is an industry today. There is no gain in denying it. The 95 per cent of the revenue from this industry is monopolised by this 1%. And this 1% is only a few scores of families. In certain families, every member is a designated senior. It is difficult, if not impossible, to find a judge sitting or retired of the High Court or Supreme Court who has his offspring, brother, sister, or nephew who has crossed the age of forty remaining to be a plebeian lawyer."

To this submission, Justice Gavai said, "How many judges can you name whose offsprings have been designated as Senior Counsels?"

"We have a chart; we will give that," Nedumpara submitted.

Justice Gavai said, "You are putting an impression on all the judges, not just a single judge...How many can you find?"

Nedumpara responded, "We have prepared a chart. We will give that. In fact, we did not expect that this petition would come up so fast. We had prepared a chart in 2015. We have prepared a chart for the entire judiciary and the judges also. The chart has to be updated; my friends were doing it; the matter got listed up too soon. We will complete that chart."

Justice Gavai clarified, "We will grant you permission to amend the petition. If you want, if you don't want to amend the petition. We may take steps that we find necessary."

Nedumpara submitted that there are twenty petitioners, and all of them will have to be communicated.

Justice Gavai said, "We are not bothered about the 20 petitioners. That is why the first question we asked was, Who is the signatory to the petition? Who has drafted the petition? And who has sworn the petition."

To this, Nedumpara contended, "I, myself."

The Bench said, "Therefore, you decide whether you want to make any modifications in the averments; you want to withdraw or you want to continue with it?"

Nedumpara then submitted, "I don't understand, why the Bar is so scared of the judges? Why? What is the need?"

"Mr. Nedumpara, this is a court of law, not a club or a ...maidan in Bombay to make speeches. So, when you address a court of law, make legal arguments, not arguments only for the purpose of gallery," Justice Gavai said.

The Court noted that petitioner no. 12 does not want to be a part of the petition, and the same is allowed.

After some submissions, Justice Viswanathan said, "Make up your mind. You file data. Be very clear whether you want to carry on with the same averments. We have a chart of your averments. If the petition comes in the same form, action against each one of the petitioners will be taken in accordance with law. Be very very clear about it."

"We don't want that. We want to say that you would like to reflect upon it," Justice Gavai said.

Nedumpara submitted, "That is always. I am not saying that."

Justice Gavai further remarked, "A lawyer who is a signatory to such pleadings is also guilty of contempt."

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]