During the hearing, the bench questioned advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara, representing the petitioners, asking, "How many judges can you name whose offspring have been designated as senior counsel?" This inquiry was in response to the petition's claim that it is "difficult, if not impossible, to find a judge sitting or retired, of the high court or Supreme Court, who has his offspring, brother, sister or nephew who has crossed the age of 40 remaining to be a plebeian lawyer."
The petition, filed by Nedumpara along with several practicing advocates, challenges the Delhi High Court's decision to designate 70 lawyers as senior advocates. The petitioners argue that the current system perpetuates privilege and disparity, favoring relatives of judges and contravening constitutional principles of equality.
The Supreme Court bench emphasized the gravity of the allegations, stating, "We find that various scurrilous, unfounded allegations have been made against the institution." The justices warned that such claims could amount to contempt of court, noting, "Even a lawyer who is signatory to such pleading is equally guilty of contempt."
In light of these concerns, the bench granted the petitioners time to amend their plea, cautioning that failure to remove the objectionable content could result in contempt proceedings. The matter has been adjourned for further hearing next week, with the court indicating that it will take stringent action if the contentious averments are not addressed.
This development underscores the judiciary's sensitivity to accusations of nepotism and favoritism within its ranks. The process of designating senior advocates has long been a subject of debate, with critics alleging that it lacks transparency and perpetuates elitism. The Supreme Court's response in this instance reflects a commitment to uphold the integrity of the legal profession and the impartiality of judicial appointments.
The petitioners' contention centers on the belief that the designation process is monopolized by a select group, thereby marginalizing deserving candidates without familial connections. They assert that this practice undermines the meritocratic ideals enshrined in the Constitution and calls into question the fairness of the legal system.
Advocate Nedumpara, known for his activism against perceived elitism in the legal profession, has previously challenged the senior advocate designation process. In this instance, he presented a list of lawyers supporting his petition, alleging that "95% of this profession is being monopolised by 1% of lawyers."
The Supreme Court's firm stance serves as a reminder of the judiciary's intolerance for baseless allegations that threaten its credibility. The outcome of this case may have significant implications for the future of senior advocate designations and the ongoing discourse on ensuring equity and transparency within the legal profession.