Supreme Court Questions Nepotism Claims in Delhi HC’s 70 Senior Advocates

The Supreme Court of India reprimanded advocate Mathews J Nedumpara for alleging nepotism in the recent designation of 70 lawyers as Senior Advocates by the Delhi High Court. The Bench, comprising Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan, strongly opposed the accusations, questioning their validity and cautioning against baseless claims.

Background of the Case

The petition, filed by Nedumpara and others, sought to quash the Delhi High Court’s recent decision to confer Senior Advocate status on 70 lawyers. The plea alleged favouritism, claiming that relatives of judges were disproportionately represented in the list.

In response, Justice Gavai directly challenged the lawyer, asking, “How many judges can you name whose offspring have been made seniors?” The Court demanded evidence to substantiate the claims, expressing dissatisfaction with the petitioner’s submissions.

Court’s Warning

The Bench provided Nedumpara the opportunity to amend the petition and remove the contentious allegations. Justice Gavai sternly warned that failing to do so could result in action against the petitioners, remarking, “A lawyer who is signatory to such a petition is also guilty of contempt.”

When Nedumpara argued that members of the bar were intimidated by judges, the Court took exception, cautioning against turning legal proceedings into a platform for speeches. Justice Gavai reminded the advocate, “This is a court of law, not the azaad maidan of Bombay to make speeches. Make legal arguments, not arguments for the gallery.”

Controversy Surrounding Designations

The Delhi High Court’s recent Senior Advocate designations have faced significant scrutiny. Allegations include:

1. Disputed List Approval: Senior Advocate Sudhir Nandrajog, a panel member and Delhi government representative, claimed the final list was circulated without his consent. He was unable to review the list as he was engaged in arbitration proceedings at the time.
2. Claims of Tampering: It has been alleged that the original list of designated lawyers was altered before submission to the full court for deliberation.

The controversy intensified after one member of the Permanent Committee overseeing the designations resigned, citing irregularities in the process.

Supreme Court’s Stance

The top court’s rebuke underscores the seriousness of levelling unsubstantiated allegations, particularly in matters involving the judiciary. The Bench emphasised the importance of adhering to decorum and making well-founded legal arguments.

Next Steps

The Court granted the petitioner time to revise the pleadings and remove allegations. Failure to comply could result in the dismissal of the plea or contempt proceedings.