The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed a petition alleging that the Delhi High Court had failed to comply with the Top Court’s previous directions regarding the reconsideration of lawyers’ applications for Senior Advocate designation.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi took a stern view of the petition, advising members of the bar against filing such pleas unnecessarily. The Court expressed confidence that the High Court was taking appropriate steps to align its rules with the Supreme Court’s judgments.
“No Reason to Believe Inordinate Delay”
The petition claimed that the Delhi High Court had not acted upon the Supreme Court’s April order, which directed a review of applications from lawyers whose names were rejected or deferred during the previous year’s designation process.
Dismissing the apprehension of non-compliance, the bench observed that High Courts across the country are currently in the process of amending their rules for senior designations to ensure conformity with the law laid down by the Apex Court.
“We have no reason to believe that there will be inordinate delay by the High Court to comply with the Supreme Court judgment. Dismissed,” the bench ordered.
Addressing the petitioner, CJI Surya Kant remarked, “We do not expect members of the bar to generate litigation. Don’t file these kind of petitions. The Chief Justice committee is aware of it.”
Context: The Controversy Over Designations
The legal battle stems from the Senior Advocate designation process conducted by the Delhi High Court last year. The results, decided by the full court in November 2024, saw only 70 lawyers conferred with the gown out of 302 candidates interviewed. The applications of 67 other lawyers were deferred.
This selection process became the subject of significant controversy following the resignation of Senior Advocate Sudhir Nandrajog from the Permanent Committee. The Permanent Committee, established under the guidelines of the Supreme Court’s 2017 judgment in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court, is responsible for shortlisting candidates before the list is sent to the full court for a final decision. Nandrajog had alleged that the final list was prepared without his consent, triggering concerns over procedural transparency.
The April Directive
Following these developments, advocate Raman Gandhi moved the Supreme Court seeking to quash the November 2024 decision of the Delhi High Court.
Hearing that plea in April, a bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan had issued a directive to the Delhi High Court to reconsider the applications of the lawyers who had been rejected or deferred. The current petition, which was dismissed on Tuesday, had alleged non-compliance with that specific directive.
