In a significant development impacting the legal fraternity, the Supreme Court of India has directed the Delhi High Court to reconsider the applications of lawyers whose names were either rejected or deferred during the 2024 process for conferring Senior Advocate designations. This decision follows a plea filed by Advocate Raman Gandhi challenging the manner in which the designations were conferred.
Background of the Controversy
The controversy stems from a decision taken by the full court of the Delhi High Court in November 2024, where only 70 lawyers out of 302 candidates were conferred with the prestigious title of Senior Advocate. Notably, 67 applications were deferred while the rest were rejected, sparking questions about transparency and fairness in the designation process.
Senior Advocate Sudhir Nandrajog, a member of the Permanent Committee responsible for shortlisting candidates, resigned after alleging that the final list was prepared without his consent. This resignation added fuel to the growing criticism surrounding the procedure.
Supreme Court’s Intervention
A two-judge bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan heard Advocate Raman Gandhi’s petition seeking the quashing of the November 2024 decision. In its order, the Supreme Court has now directed the Registrar General of the Delhi High Court to take steps for the reconstitution of the Permanent Committee for Senior Designations.
The Court further ordered that:
“The applications of the deferred and rejected applicants shall be placed before the Committee which shall be processed according to the rules of 2024. It may be done expeditiously.”
This move is expected to bring clarity and provide a second opportunity to deserving candidates whose applications were either overlooked or postponed.
Importance of the Permanent Committee
The Permanent Committee for Senior Designations plays a pivotal role in India’s legal framework. It is responsible for evaluating and recommending names for senior designation. The committee comprises senior judges and distinguished members of the Bar. After the committee finalizes a list, the same is placed before the full court of the High Court for a final decision.
This process has its roots in the landmark 2017 Supreme Court judgment in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India, which established guidelines for a transparent and merit-based designation process across all High Courts.
Role of Sudhir Nandrajog and the Sealed Cover Report
The Supreme Court also sought responses from the Delhi High Court’s Registrar General and Sudhir Nandrajog, the committee member who had resigned. Nandrajog submitted his response in a sealed cover, which further intensified curiosity and concern among legal professionals.
Such sealed cover submissions have often been critiqued for their lack of transparency, and in this context, it has raised further questions regarding the integrity of the designation process.
Senior Advocates Involved
Several prominent Senior Advocates appeared in the matter, including Siddharth Mridul and Vikas Singh, underscoring the seriousness of the issues raised.
Implications of the Supreme Court Order
The Supreme Court’s direction holds major implications for the Delhi High Court and other High Courts across India:
- Ensures Accountability: It reiterates the importance of accountability in senior designations, an honor that carries immense weight in legal practice.
- Reinforces Rule of Law: The Court’s insistence on adherence to the 2024 rules underscores the significance of established procedures.
- Upholds Transparency: By mandating the reconsideration of rejected and deferred cases, the Supreme Court promotes fairness and impartiality.
- Sets Precedent: This ruling could serve as a precedent for similar challenges in other High Courts where designation processes are questioned.
Why Senior Advocate Designation Matters
Being designated a Senior Advocate is not merely symbolic. It is a mark of distinction conferred upon advocates with outstanding knowledge, integrity, and standing at the Bar. The designation entitles lawyers to wear a special gown, places certain restrictions on direct client interaction, and reflects the trust placed in them by the judiciary.
Any flaws or opacity in the designation process risk undermining the credibility of this institution and the morale of the legal community.
Looking Forward
With the Supreme Court’s directive, the ball is now in the Delhi High Court’s court. The reconstitution of the Permanent Committee and fresh consideration of the deferred and rejected candidates will hopefully bring about a more equitable outcome.
Legal circles will be keenly watching how the Delhi High Court handles this sensitive matter and whether it sets a new benchmark for procedural fairness in senior designations.
Conclusion
This ruling by the Supreme Court marks a pivotal moment in the Indian legal system’s ongoing push for transparency and accountability. It sends a strong message that designation as a Senior Advocate must be based on merit and in accordance with established rules—not on favoritism or behind-the-scenes decisions.
The Delhi High Court must now act promptly and fairly to restore faith in the senior designation process and ensure that deserving lawyers are not denied recognition due to procedural lapses or internal disagreements.
