In a significant development, the Supreme Court of India on April 4, 2025, sought clarification from the Delhi High Court regarding the possibility of conducting a fresh assessment of advocates whose applications for senior advocate designation were either rejected or deferred in a recent round of appointments.
A bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing a petition that questioned the November 2024 designation of 70 advocates as Senior Advocates by the Delhi High Court, alleging irregularities in the selection process.
"So you must take instructions that in case of rejected candidates and deferred candidates, whether the process will be conducted from the start from the markings by the permanent committee,"
— Justice Abhay S Oka to Senior Advocate Rajshekhar Rao
Senior Advocate Rajshekhar Rao, appearing on behalf of the Delhi High Court, informed the bench that the Full Court of the High Court could reconsider the rejected and deferred applications. This was in line with the suggestion made by the Supreme Court during an earlier hearing.
However, the petitioner pushed back, arguing that even the initial evaluation conducted by the Permanent Committee was flawed and should be re-examined.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Suggests Centre Handle Plea to Ban Social Media Access for Children Under 13
The bench then specifically asked Rao whether the reconsideration process could start from the beginning — particularly from the marking and evaluation stage handled by the Permanent Committee, which is supposed to operate as per the norms laid down in the Indira Jaising judgment.
Rao submitted that the Supreme Court is currently reviewing the guidelines established by the Indira Jaising rulings and suggested that the process could be delayed until the new verdict is delivered. However, Justice Oka disagreed.
"The process has to be conducted based on the law that existed at the time,"
— Justice Abhay S Oka
It was further pointed out during the hearing that the Permanent Committee formed in November 2024 can no longer function in its previous composition. This is due to significant changes in the positions of its members:
Justice Manmohan, who was the then Chief Justice and chaired the Committee, has been elevated to the Supreme Court.
Justice Yashwant Varma, another member, has since been transferred to the Allahabad High Court.
Hence, any fresh assessment would require a newly reconstituted Permanent Committee.
Read Also:- Congress MP Moves Supreme Court Against Waqf Amendment Bill 2025, Alleging Bias Against Muslim Community
Background: What Sparked the Controversy?
This legal battle is rooted in a petition filed against the Delhi High Court’s notification issued on November 29, 2024, which designated 70 lawyers as Senior Advocates and placed several others on a “Deferred List” for future consideration.
The controversy escalated after the resignation of Senior Advocate Nandrajog, who was part of the selection process. His departure came with serious allegations of procedural lapses during the designation exercise.
The Permanent Committee at the time was composed of:
- Justice Manmohan (Chair)
- Justice Vibhu Bakhru
- Justice Yashwant Varma
- Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma
- Senior Advocate Nandrajog
- Senior Advocate Mohit Mathur
The Supreme Court had earlier issued notices to both the Delhi High Court and Nandrajog, asking for their responses. The apex court also reviewed sealed cover reports submitted by the Permanent Committee.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Mandates Full Disclosure of Criminal History in Bail Petitions
Upon examining the sealed reports, Justice Oka expressed concern that the Committee had recommended candidates for designation, which he said went beyond its authority.
"The Committee’s role is only to assign points as per objective criteria — not to make recommendations,"
— Justice Abhay S Oka, referring to Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (2017)
He also referenced the recent Jitender Kalla judgment, where the Court reaffirmed that evaluation and scoring by the Committee should be strictly within the scope defined by prior judgments.
The Indira Jaising judgments of 2017 and 2023 serve as the foundation for current guidelines on the conferment of Senior Advocate status. These guidelines define several key elements:
- Self-nomination by advocates
- Points-based evaluation
- Interview-based assessment
- Committee structure
- Integrity and professional standing review
Despite these structured rules, the Supreme Court has voiced concerns over lack of mechanisms to verify an advocate’s ethical and professional standing, and whether subjective biases may still influence the designation process.
The top court has reserved its judgment on whether the Indira Jaising framework itself requires reconsideration, which could significantly reshape how advocates are designated across India.
Case no. – W.P.(C) No. 61/2025
Case Title – Raman Alias Raman Gandhi v. Registrar General, High Court of Delhi
