Arham Jain
Supreme Court of India on 24th February 2025 (Monday) reiterated that the Permanent Committee of a constitutional court has no authority to recommend candidates for Senior Advocate designation, restricting its role to merely assigning points to applicants in the case of Raman Alias Raman Gandhi v. Registrar General, High Court of Delhi. A bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan made this observation while hearing a writ petition challenging the designation of 70 lawyers as Senior Advocates by the Delhi High Court. During the hearing, Justice Oka emphasized that the Indira Jaising judgment of 2017 does not grant the Permanent Committee the power to recommend candidates, stating: “Under which law can the committee recommend? In the Indira Jaising judgment, there is no power to recommend. The function of the committee is to only assign points… The other day we have delivered a judgment holding that the job of the permanent committee ends by only giving the points. That’s the function.”
The Supreme Court had earlier issued a notice to the Registrar General of the Delhi High Court and Senior Advocate Sudhir Nandrajog, who resigned from the Permanent Committee after alleging that the final list of designated Senior Advocates was drafted without his consent. The Court directed the Registrar General to produce the Permanent Committee’s report in a sealed cover. Upon reviewing the sealed reports, Justice Oka noted that the committee had indeed made recommendations, which was beyond its jurisdiction. Referring to its recent ruling in Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt.) of NCT of Delhi & Anr. [Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 4299/2024], the Court reaffirmed that the Committee’s role is limited to assigning points based on specific criteria, including years of practice, reported judgments, and legal publications, as outlined in paragraphs 73.7 and 73.8 of the Ms. Indira Jaising v. Union of India [Writ Petition (C) No.454 of 2015]. These names must then be forwarded to the Full Court for final approval.
Senior Advocate Sudhir Nandrajog, appearing in person, informed the Court that a draft list of designated Senior Advocates was circulated on November 25, 2024, during a meeting chaired by the then Chief Justice. He stated: “The interview process ended on the 19th of November and thereafter a meeting was held on 25th of November where the then Chief Justice circulated a draft list… Thereafter, it was agreed that we will go through that list and hold a meeting on 2nd of December. From 25th November onwards, no meeting was ever held. At least I didn’t receive any notice.”
The Supreme Court granted Nandrajog a month’s time to file an affidavit, while questioning the Delhi High Court’s counsel on whether similar concerns regarding the Committee’s power to recommend were raised in previous petitions. During the proceedings, Justice Oka also sought clarification on the composition of the Delhi High Court’s Permanent Committee, which had six members, including a nominee from the Delhi government and the Additional Solicitor General, in the absence of an Advocate General. Reacting to this, he remarked: “There can’t be six members in the committee.”
The petition seeks to quash the notification dated November 29, 2024, designating 70 advocates as Senior Advocates, along with the “Deferred List” of candidates whose applications are to be considered later. Justice Oka also directed the Delhi High Court counsel to examine whether the Indira Jaising judgment permits deferring candidates for future review.
The controversy erupted following Nandrajog’s resignation, where he alleged procedural irregularities in the designation process. The Permanent Committee at the time comprised then Chief Justice Manmohan, Justice Vibhu Bakhru, Justice Yashwant Varma, Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, Senior Advocate Sudhir Nandrajog, and Senior Advocate Mohit Mathur.
Two earlier petitions challenging the Delhi High Court’s decision were dismissed by the Supreme Court. One was filed by Advocate Sanjay Dubey, who had been denied designation and argued that Nandrajog’s resignation indicated flaws in the process. However, the Court refused to entertain the plea, leading to its withdrawal. Another petition by Advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara was also dismissed, with the bench cautioning him against making allegations of nepotism in the designation process.
The Senior Advocate designation system has been under scrutiny, especially after the Jitender Kalla case, where the Supreme Court questioned various aspects of the existing framework under the Indira Jaising judgments of 2017 and 2023. The bench raised concerns regarding self-application, interview-based assessment, and the lack of mechanisms to address issues related to a candidate’s integrity, signaling potential reforms in the near future.
Case Name: Raman Alias Raman Gandhi v. Registrar General, High Court of Delhi
Diary Number: 3053/2025
Bench: Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
Click here to access the Order.
Instagram: Click here.
LinkedIn: Click here.
For Collaboration and Business: info.desikaanoon@gmail.com