The Supreme Court has issued a notice on a writ petition challenging the Delhi High Court’s decision to confer ‘Senior Designation’ on 70 advocates. 

A bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan has sought a response, at this stage, only from the Registrar General of the Delhi High Court and Senior Advocate Sudhir Nandrajog, a former member of the Permanent Committee. Nandrajog had resigned, asserting that the final list was prepared without his consent.

The Court further directed the Registrar General to submit a copy of the Permanent Committee report in a sealed cover. 

Notably, apart from requesting comments from Nandrajog, the petitioner, an advocate, has moved the Supreme Court seeking the following reliefs:

(i) quashing of the notification dated November 29, 2024 by which 70 advocates were notified to be designated as Senior Advocates;

(ii) quashing of the "Deferred List" of advocates whose stand is proposed to be considered in a future meeting.

The matter is next listed on February 24, 2025.

To summarize, the Senior Advocate designation of 70 lawyers at the Delhi High Court became contentious after Committee member Sudhir Nandrajog resigned, alleging that the final list was prepared without his consent. The Permanent Committee, which recommended the designations, included the then Chief Justice Manmohan, Justice Vibhu Bakhru, Justice Yashwant Varma, Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, and Senior Advocate Mohit Mathur, apart from Nandrajog.

At least two petitions were filed before the Supreme Court challenging the Delhi High Court’s decision to confer senior designation. One was by Advocate Sanjay Dubey, an applicant who was denied senior designation. He argued that Nandrajog’s resignation, citing that the final list was prepared without his consent, was a significant irregularity that invalidated the process. However, a bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih declined to entertain Dubey’s petition, leading to its withdrawal.

The other petition was filed by Advocate Matthews J. Nedumpara and others.

During its initial hearing, a bench of Justices Gavai and KV Viswanathan criticized the petitioners for alleging that senior designations were granted based on nepotism and warned of contempt action unless those claims were removed.

Later, a coordinate bench led by Justice Gavai dismissed the plea, with Justice Gavai remarking in passing, “You better get elected to Parliament and get this (provision in the Advocates Act regarding senior advocates) removed.”

Notably, in 2023, the Supreme Court had also dismissed a writ petition by Nedumpara challenging the constitutionality of Section 16 of the Advocates Act, which classifies advocates as Senior Advocates, and Section 23(5), which grants them the right to pre-audience.