Challenge To Delhi HC's Senior Designations | Can Deferred Candidates Be Considered Again By Full Court? Supreme Court Asks HC

The Supreme Court has asked the Delhi High Court whether the controversy concerning recent senior advocate designations could be resolved by the Full Court by considering the cases of candidates whose designation was deferred.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan posed this query during the hearing of a petition challenging the Delhi High Court's designation of 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 suggested to the Counsel for the High Court.

Justice Oka noted that there were several eligible candidates who were not designated. The Court sought the High Court's response on whether it would consider those candidates by placing their cases 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 certain number of candidates were designated. Is High Court willing to consider cases of remaining candidates by placing them before the full house?”, he said.

Justice Oka remarked that if the High Court did not consider the suggestion, the Supreme Court would have to examine the matter. “Otherwise, we will have to go into this. We have an affidavit which indicates the manner in which process was conducted”, he said.

Senior Advocate Sudhir Nandrajog, a former member of the Permanent Committee, has alleged that the final list of designated Senior Advocates was prepared without his consent. On February 24, he had submitted that the Committee had concluded interviews on November 19, 2024, and a meeting was held on November 25, 2024, during which a draft list of candidates was circulated by the then Chief Justice.

According to Nandrajog, it was agreed that the list would be reviewed in a subsequent meeting on December 2, 2024. However, no further meetings took place. The Court had allowed Nandrajog to file an affidavit to bring this on record.

On Friday, the Court directed that copies of Nandrajog's affidavit be provided to the advocates appearing in the matter. It also directed the counsel for the Registrar General to return with instructions and make a statement on the issue by April 4.

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