Crime Today News
In order to avoid injustice to any of the applicants, the Supreme Court on Tuesday directed the Delhi High Court to consider afresh the applications of lawyers, whose candidature was either deferred or rejected in November 2024 for senior designation.
The Bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan ordered the High Court to consider the deferred or rejected cases, in accordance with the High Court of Delhi Designations of Senior Advocates Rules 2024.
After perusing the affidavit of Sudhir Nandrajog (Permament Committee member who resigned alleging irregularities) and the documents filed by the Registrar General of the High Court, the top court of the country noted that the marks given by one of the members of the Permanent Committee were not considered.
Out of 302 applicants, 70 were designated as Senior Advocates in November 2024. Applications of 67 candidates were deferred and the rest were rejected, it added.
It directed the Registrar General of the High Court to take steps for the reconstitution of the Permanent Committee in terms of Rule 3 of the 2024 Rules.
Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for one of the petitioners, prayed that the fresh exercise be completed within a period of four weeks, or that the designations be conferred before the Court closed for vacations.
The Bench, however, denied the prayers on the grounds that it would take time for the Committee to peruse the verdicts and documents submitted by the candidates.
The Senior Advocate further pressed that the cases of deferred candidates be considered by the Full Court instead of the Permanent Committee.
The Apex Court directed the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) to nominate its members to the Committee in terms of the rules within one week of such requisition being made by the Registrar General.
Earlier, the High Court was asked by the top court of the country whether its Permanent Committee would conduct a fresh assessment of the advocates, whose applications for senior designations were either rejected or deferred.
On February 24, the Supreme Court had observed that the Permanent Committee’s role was limited to assigning points to candidates for senior designation and did not extend to making recommendations.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (April 15) directed the Delhi High Court to consider afresh the applications for senior designations, which were deferred or rejected in November last year, in accordance with the existing rules (The High Court of Delhi Designations of Senior Advocates Rules 2024).
A bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan passed the direction “in the peculiar facts of the case and to avoid injustice to any of the applicants.” During the hearing, Justice Oka orally said that the documents revealed that the marks given by one of the members of the Permanent Committee was not considered.
“The issue prima facie is that marks assigned by one member have not been considered,” Justice Oka said.
The bench noted that out of 302 applicants, 70 were designated as Senior Advocates in November 2024. Applications of 67 candidates were deferred and the rest were rejected.
The bench disposed of the writ petition, which challenged the senior designation process, with the following directions :
“After having perused the affidavit of Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog and the documents filed by the Registrar General of the High Court, we find the appropriate solution would be to direct the High Court to consider the cases of deferred and rejected candidates in accordance with the existing rules (The High Court of Delhi Designations of Senior Advocates Rules 2024). Therefore following directions are issued :
- The Registrar General will take steps for the reconstitution of the Permanent Committee in terms of Rule 3 of the 2024 Rules.
- The applications of the deferred and rejected applicants shall be again placed before the Permanent Committee which shall be processed in accordance with the Rules 2024.”
Although Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, for one of the petitioners, requested that the fresh exercise be directed to be completed within a period of four weeks, the bench declined. Justice Oka said that it would take time to peruse the judgments and documents submitted by the candidates. At this juncture, Singh replied that in November, the process was done “overnight” and hence, there was no reason it could not be done in an expeditious manner.
When Singh said that the designations must be done before the Court closes for vacations, Justice Oka asked, “What is the tearing hurry for the designations?” Singh made an alternative request that the cases of deferred candidates could be considered by the Full Court instead of the Permanent Committee.
Senior Advocate Rajshekhar Rao appeared for the High Court. At his request, the bench included a direction to the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi to nominate its members to the Committee in terms of the rules within one week of such requisition being made by the Registrar General.
A bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing a petition challenging the Delhi High Court’s decision to confer senior designations on 70 Advocates in November last year on the ground of alleged irregularities.
On the last date, the Court asked the Delhi High Court whether its Permanent Committee would conduct a fresh assessment of the advocates, whose applications for senior designations were either rejected or deferred.
Background
Previously, on February 24, the Supreme Court had observed that the Permanent Committee’s role was limited to assigning points to candidates for senior designation and did not extend to making recommendations.
The Supreme Court had previously issued notice to the Delhi High Court and Sudhir Nandrajog(Permament Committee member who resigned alleging irregularities), seeking their responses. The Court had also called for the Permanent Committee’s reports in a sealed cover.
On reviewing the sealed reports, Justice Oka had noted that the Committee had recommended names for senior designation, which the Court observed was beyond its mandate. Referring to the 2017 Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India judgment, Justice Oka pointed out that the Committee’s role is limited to assigning points to candidates based on objective criteria and does not extend to making recommendations. He also cited the recent Jitender Kalla judgment, where the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the Committee’s function ends with the allocation of points.
The petition before the Supreme Court challenges the Delhi High Court’s notification issued on November 29, 2024, designating 70 advocates as Senior Advocates and placing others on a “Deferred List” for future consideration.
The controversy arose after Nandrajog’s resignation, with his allegations of procedural irregularities. The Permanent Committee, chaired by the then Chief Justice Manmohan, also included Justice Vibhu Bakhru, Justice Yashwant Varma, Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, Senior Advocate Nandrajog, and Senior Advocate Mohit Mathur.
The senior designation system remains under scrutiny, with the Supreme Court recently raising concerns about the process under the Indira Jaising judgments of 2017 and 2023, which lay down guidelines for the conferment of senior advocate designations. The Court has questioned aspects including self-application, interview-based assessment, the points system, and the absence of mechanisms to evaluate candidates’ integrity. The Court recently reserved its judgment on the issue of reconsideration of the Indira Jaising judgments.
📰 Crime Today News is proudly sponsored by DRYFRUIT & CO – A Brand by eFabby Global LLC
Design & Developed by Yes Mom Hosting
