Challenge To Delhi HC Senior Designations : Supreme Court Issues Notice To HC Registrar General & Permanent Committee Member Who Resigned

The Supreme Court recently issued notice on a writ petition challenging Delhi High Court's conferment of 'Senior Designation' on 70 advocates.

A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order seeking response, at the present stage, only of Registrar General of the Delhi High Court and Senior Advocate Sudhir Nandrajog - member of the Permanent Committee who resigned stating that the final list was drafted without his consent.

It was further directed that the Registrar General produce before the Court a copy of the Permanent Committee report in a sealed cover.

Pertinently, besides the prayer to seek comments from Nandrajog, the petitioner (an advocate) has approached the top Court seeking the following reliefs:

(i) quashing of the notification dated November 29, 2024 by which 70 advocates were notified to be designated as Senior Advocates;

(ii) quashing of the "Deferred List" of advocates whose stand is proposed to be considered in a future meeting.

The matter is next listed on February 24, 2025.

To recap, the Senior Advocate designation of 70 lawyers at Delhi High Court was embroiled in controversy when one of the Committee members (Nandrajog) resigned claiming that the final list was drafted without his consent. Besides Nandrajog, the Permanent Committee of the High Court, which recommended the names for senior designation, comprised the then Chief Justice Manmohan, Justice Vibhu Bakhru, Justice Yashwant Varma, Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, and Senior Advocate Mohit Mathur.

Challenging the relevant Delhi High Court communication (conferring the senior designation), atleast two pleas were filed before the Supreme Court.

One of these was by Advocate Sanjay Dubey, an applicant, who was denied senior designation. He claimed that Nandrajog's resignation on the claim that the final list was drafted without his consent was a major anomaly which vitiated the process. A bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih refused to entertain Dubey's writ petition, which ultimately led to its withdrawal. 

The other was filed by Advocate Mathews J Nedumpara (and others). During initial hearing of this petition, a bench of Justices Gavai and KV Viswanathan pulled up the petitioners for making allegations that senior designations are conferred based on nepotism and warned of contempt action if those averments were not deleted from the petition. Subsequently, a coordinate bench led by Justice Gavai dismissed the petition. "You better get elected to Parliament and get this (provision in the Advocates Act regarding senior advocates) removed...", Justice Gavai told Nedumpara in passing.

Notably, in 2023, the Supreme Court had dismissed another writ petition filed by Nedumpara challenging the constitutionality of Section 16 of the Advocates Act - which provides the classification of advocates as Senior Advocates- and Section 23(5), which gives Senior Advocates the right to pre-audience.

Case Title: RAMAN ALIAS RAMAN GANDHI v. REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF DELHI, Diary No. - 3053/2025