Arham Jain
The Supreme Court questioned the Delhi High Court’s permanent committee’s Senior Advocate designation procedure.
According to the Division Bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, the permanent committee’s function should be restricted to allocating points rather than suggesting candidates for designation. The Apex Court stated that the High Court’s complete court is in charge of that assignment.
In the midst of claims that the final list was made without the approval of Senior Advocate Sudhir Nandrajog, one of the permanent committee members, the Court was considering a suit against the Delhi High Court’s designation of 70 attorneys as Senior Advocates.
On February 25, the Court sent notice to Nandrajog and the Registrar General of the Delhi High Court. In a sealed cover, it had also requested the report of the permanent committee.
Following his perusal of the findings, Justice Oka noted on Monday that the committee had gone beyond its authority in accordance with the Supreme Court’s decision in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India by making suggestions.
Which legal committee is able to make recommendations? There is no authority to make recommendations in Indira Jaising. The committee’s work stops with the assignment of points, Justice Oka said, adding that all applications must be presented before the whole court without any recommendations.The Court also cited its most recent decision in Jitender Kalla, whereby it was unequivocally decided that the permanent committee’s power terminates when points are assigned and that it is unable to evaluate applicants in any way other than through this established process.
Following Nandrajog’s allegation that he had not been notified prior to the publishing of the final list of designated advocates, the senior designations have been involved in controversy.
Sources claim that since he was preoccupied with an arbitration at the time, Nandrajog, another official from the Delhi government, did not sign the final list that was forwarded to the entire court for consideration. Additionally, it was said that the initial list was altered and that the final list was not the one that was chosen.
At Monday’s court hearing, Nandrajog stated that the interview process ended on November 19, 2024, and that the Delhi High Court’s then-Chief Justice subsequently published a draft list of designated Senior Advocates on November 25, 2024. But a follow-up meeting that was supposed to happen on December 2, 2024, never happened, raising questions about procedural violations.
After the interviews concluded on November 19, a meeting was convened on November 25 and the then-Chief Justice distributed a draft list. He told the Court that another meeting was scheduled on December 2 but never happened.
Justice Oka asked whether the particular matter of the permanent committee’s restricted authority had been brought up in those cases after learning that similar petitions contesting the procedure had previously been denied.
Was this a contentious subject at the time? that the committee lacks the authority to make recommendations? The committee is limited to evaluating on the basis of points. The court as a whole will decide it in the end,” he said.
The Court also raised concerns about the permanent committee’s makeup, pointing out that it seemed to have six members, which is inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in Indira Jaising, which established standards for Senior Advocate designations.
What is the Permanent Committee’s membership size? Establishing legislation based on the Indira Jaising ruling is the mandate. It noted that the committee could not have six members.
The “deferred list,” a group of applicants whose appointment as Senior Advocates was delayed for further review, was another topic the bench wanted clarification on. It instructed the attorney for the Delhi High Court to investigate if any provision of the Indira Jaising ruling allows for the deferment of certain candidates.
The Delhi High Court was ordered by the Court to address these issues and make clear if its regulations comply with the Supreme Court’s directives on Senior Advocate designations.
Following the filing of Nandrajog’s affidavit and a thorough reply from the Delhi High Court, the case will be heard again.