The Supreme Court has asked the Delhi High Court whether the controversy regarding recent senior advocate designations can be resolved by the Full Court through reconsideration of candidates whose designation was deferred.
A bench comprising Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan raised this query during a hearing on a petition challenging the Delhi High Court’s decision to designate 70 lawyers as Senior Advocates.
"Those whose cases were deferred, rejected, whatever you want to call it, can those cases be considered again by the Full Court? Full Court we are saying, not the Permanent Committee etc.," Justice Oka asked the Counsel for the High Court.
Justice Oka pointed out that several eligible candidates were not designated and sought the High Court’s response on whether it would reconsider their cases by presenting them before the Full Court.
"Please take instructions from the High Court. We want to resolve this issue. We have seen the affidavit by the advocate member. There are a number of eligible candidates, out of which only a certain number were designated. Is the High Court willing to consider the remaining candidates by placing them before the Full Court?" Justice Oka stated.
He also remarked that if the High Court declined to consider this approach, the Supreme Court would have to intervene.
"Otherwise, we will have to go into this. We have an affidavit that indicates how the process was conducted," he added.
Senior Advocate Sudhir Nandrajog, a former member of the Permanent Committee, has raised concerns over procedural irregularities. He alleged that the final list of designated Senior Advocates was prepared without his consent.
On February 24, he submitted that the Permanent Committee had concluded interviews on November 19, 2024, followed by a meeting on November 25, 2024, where a draft list of candidates was circulated by the then Chief Justice. According to him, it was agreed that the list would be reviewed in a subsequent meeting on December 2, 2024. However, no further meetings took place, leading to doubts about the transparency of the process.
In response, the Court allowed Nandrajog to file an affidavit to officially bring these issues to record.
On Friday, the Court directed that copies of Nandrajog’s affidavit be provided to the advocates involved in the case. It also instructed the counsel representing the Registrar General to return with instructions and make a statement on the matter by April 4, 2025.
The Supreme Court has previously commented on the role of the Permanent Committee in the designation process. On February 24, it clarified that the Committee’s function is strictly limited to assigning points to candidates based on merit and not making recommendations.
The Court had earlier issued notices to both the Delhi High Court and Nandrajog, seeking their responses. It also called for the Permanent Committee’s reports to be submitted in a sealed cover for review.
Upon reviewing these reports, Justice Oka pointed out that the Committee had recommended names for senior designation, which exceeded its mandate. He cited the 2017 Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India judgment, which established that the Committee’s role is to assign points based on objective criteria rather than making recommendations.
He also referred to the recent Jitender Kalla judgment, where the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the Permanent Committee’s function is limited to allocating points, and the final decision rests with the Full Court.
Background And Legal Implications
The petition before the Supreme Court challenges the Delhi High Court’s notification issued on November 29, 2024, which designated 70 advocates as Senior Advocates while placing others on a "Deferred List" for future consideration.
Read Also:- Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Formation of SIT to Investigate Lawyer’s Alleged Murder
The controversy deepened following Nandrajog’s resignation and his allegations of procedural lapses. The Permanent Committee at the time was chaired by then Chief Justice Manmohan and included:
- Justice Vibhu Bakhru
- Justice Yashwant Varma
- Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma
- Senior Advocate Sudhir Nandrajog
- Senior Advocate Mohit Mathur
The Supreme Court has also raised broader concerns about the senior designation process, particularly in light of the Indira Jaising judgments of 2017 and 2023. These rulings established guidelines for designating Senior Advocates, but the Court has questioned certain aspects, such as:
- The self-application process
- Interview-based assessment
- The points-based system
- The absence of mechanisms to evaluate candidates’ integrity
The Supreme Court has recently reserved its judgment on whether the Indira Jaising judgments should be reconsidered.
Case no. – W.P.(C) No. 61/2025
Case Title – Raman Alias Raman Gandhi v. Registrar General, High Court of Delhi
