Challenge To Delhi HC's Senior Designations | Permanent Committee Can't Recommend Names, Can Only Assign Points, Says Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday (February 24) observed that the duty of Permanent Committee of a constitutional court is limited to assigning points to candidates for designation as Senior Advocates, and it does not have the authority to make recommendations.

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing a writ petition challenging the designation of 70 lawyers as Senior Advocates by the Delhi High Court.

“Under which law can the committee recommend? In the Indira Jaising judgement, there is no power to recommend. The function of the committee is to only assign points. Please read the judgment in Indira Jaising's case. There is nothing like recommendation. The other day we have delivered a judgment holding that job of permanent committee ends by only giving the points. That's the function”, Justice Oka observed.

The Supreme Court had earlier issued notice to the Registrar General of the Delhi High Court and Senior Advocate Sudhir Nandrajog, who resigned from the Permanent Committee, alleging that the final list of designated Senior Advocates was drafted without his consent. The Court also directed the Registrar General to produce the Permanent Committee's report in a sealed cover.

Today, from two sealed reports of the Permanent Committee of Delhi High Court, Justice Oka noted that in the present case, the committee made recommendations.

Justice Oka referred to the Supreme Court's 2017 ruling in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India. He further noted that the Court recently held in the Jitender Kalla judgment that the Committee's job ends once it assigns points to all the candidates based on a points-based format in the Indira Jaising judgment. The Court in Jitender Kalla emphasized that the Committee cannot assess candidates in any other manner, nor can it recommend names.

The guidelines in paragraph 73.7 and 73.8 of the Indira Jaising judgment require the Committee to conduct interviews and make an overall assessment based on years of practice, reported judgments, and publications using a points system and then forward all names to the Full Court for a final decision.

Senior Advocate Sudhir Nandrajog, who was present in the Court, submitted that a draft list was circulated on November 25, 2024 during a meeting convened by the then Chief Justice wherein it was agreed to review the list and reconvene on December 2, 2024, but no further meetings were held.

“The interview process ended on the 19th of November and thereafter a meeting was held on 25^th of November where the then Chief Justice circulated a draft list which was circulated when the members came to the committee room. Thereafter my lord it was agreed that we will go through that list and hold a meeting on 2nd of December. From 25^th November onwards no meeting was ever held. At least I didn't receive any notice”, he stated.

The Court granted time of one month to Nandrajog to file an affidavit.

The counsel representing the Delhi High Court noted that two petitions on similar issues had been dismissed earlier. Justice Oka asked if the argument regarding the committee's lack of power to recommend, as stated in Indira Jaising judgment, was raised in those petitions.

Justice Oka inquired about the composition of the Permanent Committee of Delhi High Court, which consists of six members. The Court was informed that the Delhi Committee, in the absence of an Advocate General, included a nominee from the Delhi government and the Additional Solicitor General. Justice Oka responded, “There can't be six members in the committee.”

Justice Oka also asked the counsel for the Delhi High Court to explore a possible resolution without further litigation.

The petition seeks to quash the November 29, 2024, notification designating 70 advocates as Senior Advocates and the “Deferred List” of advocates whose cases are to be considered in future meetings. Today, Justice Oka asked the Delhi HC counsel to see whether any part of the Indira Jaising judgment allows for deferring certain candidates.

Background

The controversy arose after Nandrajog resigned, alleging that his consent was not obtained for the final list. The Permanent Committee included the then Chief Justice Manmohan, Justice Vibhu Bakhru, Justice Yashwant Varma, Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, Senior Advocate Sudhir Nandrajog and Senior Advocate Mohit Mathur.

Two other pleas challenging the Delhi High Court's decision were previously dismissed by the Supreme Court. One was filed by Advocate Sanjay Dubey, who was denied senior designation. He argued that Nandrajog's resignation indicated procedural irregularities. The Court refused to entertain the petition, leading to its withdrawal.

Another plea by Advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara was also dismissed by the Supreme Court, with the bench cautioning him against allegations of nepotism in the designation process.

The Senior Advocate designation system came under scrutiny in the Jitender Kalla case. Last week, the Supreme Court raised concerns about the existing system outlined in the Indira Jaising judgments of 2017 and 2023. The bench questioned several aspects, including the self-application process, interview-based assessment, points-based evaluation, and the lack of mechanisms to address concerns about a candidate's integrity.

Case no. – Diary No. – 3053/2025

Case Title – Raman Alias Raman Gandhi v. Registrar General, High Court of Delhi