Supreme Court issues warning on plea against Delhi HC advocates

The allegations were part of a petition challenging the high court’s November 29 decision to designate 70 lawyers as senior advocates

The Supreme Court on Thursday warned a group of lawyers to amend their “scurrilous” and “unfounded” allegations or face contempt proceedings after they filed a petition challenging the Delhi high court’s decision late last year to designate 70 senior advocates, a process the plea claimed favoured judges’ relatives.

The Supreme Court in New Delhi. (PTI)

“You are making an insinuation against the judges. How many judges can you name whose offspring have been made seniors,” justice Bhushan R Gavai asked lawyer Mathews J Nedumpara, who alleged it was impossible to find any high court judge whose offspring, siblings or nephew above 40 years was not designated as a senior advocate.

The allegations were part of Nedumpara’s petition challenging the Delhi high court’s November 29 decision to designate 70 lawyers as senior advocates.

Nedumpara said he had prepared and was updating a list of such names, arguing that “95% of this profession is being monopolised by 1% of lawyers.” He produced a list of lawyers who supported his contentions and authorised him to file the petition.

The bench, also comprising justice KV Viswanathan, questioned under which rule a lawyer could authorise another to file a petition. “We are not bothered who criticises us or not, but a lawyer who is party to these pleadings is equally guilty of contempt...We will grant you liberty to amend the petition but if you don’t take steps, we will take action.”

The court granted time for Nedumpara and his supporters to “reflect on their statements”, posting the matter for next week. “Be very clear, if we find on the next date that these averments are being repeated, we are not going to spare anyone. Action will be taken against each petitioner,” the bench warned.

Following this, lawyer Sanjay Dubey requested removal from Nedumpara’s list, stating he intended to specifically challenge the Delhi high court designations without going beyond that scope. Another lawyer, Subhash Jha, sought to file an intervention application to raise issues not covered in Nedumpara’s petition.

When Nedumpara claimed “the bar has become fearful of judges” while reiterating his prepared chart, the bench responded: “This is a court of law, not a boat club or a maidan for you to make speeches. When you address the court, address legal arguments and not for playing to the gallery.”

The court order noted, “On perusal of the averments made, various scurrilous and unfounded allegations have been made against the institution. We could have proceeded further, however, Mathews Nedumpara, who has not only drafted the petition but also sworn it, would like to reflect upon the averments and consult other petitioners on what course of action is to be taken.”

The petition targeted the Delhi high court’s full court following controversy over the 70 senior advocate designations. A day after the announcement, senior advocate Sudhir Nandrajog, who served on the six-member permanent committee responsible for selection, resigned after expressing dissent. He alleged procedural lapses, claiming the final list was prepared in his absence while he was on arbitration duties and sent for his post-facto signature.

While the list included 11 women and prominent practitioners from both the high court and Supreme Court, Nandrajog’s dissent cast doubt on the entire selection process headed by then chief justice Manomhan, who has since been elevated to the Supreme Court.