Today,  the Supreme Court confirmed the practice of appointing senior advocates, thereby affirming the constitutional validity of Sections 16 and 23 of the Advocates Act, 1961.

The court determined that the process of granting senior designations to advocates was not arbitrary or artificial. It emphasized that the categorization of advocates into senior and non-senior advocates was not unreasonable and was grounded in standardized merit-based criteria.

This matter was heard before a bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sudhanshu Dhulia, and CT Ravikumar in a public interest litigation (PIL) petition filed by Advocate Mathews J Nedumpara and others contesting the practice of designating advocates as 'senior' under Sections 16 and 23(5) of the Advocates Act, 1961.

In rejecting the petition, the bench also delivered severe and critical comments against the petitioner, characterizing the petition as a 'misadventure.'

"The writ petition is a misadventure likely of petitioner number 1 in continuation of some of his past misadventures," the bench said.

"If one may say, the indulgence of the junior members of the bar is in one sense more than the senior members of the bar because it is also a part of the duty of the bench to help in the evolution of the bar," the bench stated in the judgment.

The bench also noted that the judgments and orders issued in contempt cases against Nedumpara.

Nedumpara submitted that this differentiation favored a particular group of privileged lawyers, potentially leading to the monopolization of the legal profession by those with connections to influential individuals, including judges, senior advocates, politicians, and ministers. The court had reserved its verdict on October 4 after the completion of oral arguments.

Nedumpara further contended that the current guidelines, including those established in the wake of the 2018 judgement in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court, gave rise to an infringement of Article 14 of the Constitution. 

During the Course of hearing, Justice Kaul highlighted the objective of Section 16, that the appointment of a senior advocate relied on established standards and capabilities to enhance the efficiency of court proceedings.

Further, the Court also challenged Nedumpara's belief that senior advocates enjoyed special privileges, asserting that, in reality, junior lawyers often received more patient consideration.

Case Title - Mathews J. Nedumpara & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.