New Delhi, Jan 2: On Thursday, the Supreme Court expressed strong disapproval of the “scurrilous and unfounded allegations” presented in a petition challenging the granting of senior designations to attorneys.
A panel of Justices B R Gavai and K V Viswanathan questioned advocate Mathews J Nedumpara, representing the petitioners, by asking, “Can you name any judges whose children have been designated as senior counsel?”
The bench noted that the plea included insinuations about judges.
“We find that various scurrilous, unfounded allegations have been made against the institution,” they stated.
Free and Fair Journalism Will Continue to be Important in 2025
You play a vital role in promoting independent journalism. Support us in providing unbiased, in-depth coverage of significant stories.
The bench referenced claims in the petition asserting, “It is challenging, if not impossible, to find a sitting or retired judge, whether from the high court or Supreme Court, whose child, sibling, or nephew over the age of 40 remains an ordinary lawyer.” The petition, filed by Nedumpara and several other practicing attorneys, contested the senior designations awarded to certain lawyers.
During the hearing, Nedumpara offered to provide additional data to the court, arguing that the legal community was apprehensive of judges.
Justice Gavai responded, “Mr. Nedumpara, this is a court of law, not a boat club or Azad Maidan in Mumbai for making speeches. When addressing a court, present legal arguments, not statements just for show.” The court indicated it would allow him to modify the petition.
“If you do not amend the petition, we may take necessary actions,” it added.
The bench was prepared to proceed with the case, but Nedumpara indicated he wanted time to review the petition’s claims and consult with the other petitioners regarding their next steps.
“Will you be deleting these allegations or not?” the bench insisted, emphasizing the need for clarity about whether they would pursue these accusations. The petitioners were given a four-week timeframe.
The petition contended that dividing lawyers into two categories and granting privileges to a select few contradicted the principle of equality and the core values of the Constitution.
“This petition challenges Sections 16 and 23(5) of the Advocates Act, which establishes two classes of lawyers—senior advocates and other advocates—resulting in significant inequities that Parliament likely never intended or could have predicted,” it stated.
Consequently, the petition sought to annul the recent designation of senior status to approximately 70 lawyers by the Delhi High Court. (Agencies)
Leave a Reply