Supreme Court Asks Delhi HC If Permanent Committee Can Reconsider Rejected & Deferred Applications For Senior Designations
The Supreme Court on Friday (April 4) 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.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...
The Supreme Court on Friday (April 4) 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.
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.
The bench orally asked Senior Advocate Rajshekhar Rao, representing the Delhi High Court, to get instructions on whether the Permanent Committee constituted as per the judgments in the Indira Jaising cases would re-assess the rejected and deferred candidates. The matter is posted to April 15.
At the outset of today's hearing, Rao informed the bench that the Full Court of the High Court can re-consider the rejected and deferred applications as was suggested by the Supreme Court on the previous hearing date.
However, the petitioner argued that even the preliminary assessment done by the Permanent Committee was also improper and defective. At this juncture, the bench asked the High Court if the process could be redone from the stage of Permanent Committee.
"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 Oka told Rao.
Rao suggested that since the Supreme Court has now reserved judgment on reconsidering the criteria laid down in the Indira Jaising judgments, the fresh process could be deferred till the judgment is pronounced. Justice Oka however disagreed, saying that the process has to be done as per the law which existed then.
The bench was told that the Permanent Committee of November has to be reconstituted since the then Chief Justice, Justice Manmohan was since elevated to the Supreme Court and the other judge, Justice Yashwant Varma, is now transferred to the Allahabad High Court.
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 Nandrajog, 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.
Case no. – W.P.(C) No. 61/2025
Case Title – Raman Alias Raman Gandhi v. Registrar General, High Court of Delhi
