The Supreme Court of India has recently raised concerns regarding the process and authority of the Delhi High Court's Permanent Committee responsible for designating Senior Advocates.
A bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan emphasized that the Permanent Committee's role is limited to assigning points to candidates based on established criteria and does not extend to recommending names for designation. This clarification came during the hearing of a petition challenging the designation of 70 lawyers as Senior Advocates by the Delhi High Court.
The controversy intensified following the resignation of Senior Advocate Sudhir Nandrajog from the Permanent Committee. Nandrajog claimed that the final list of designated Senior Advocates was drafted without his consent, leading to questions about the legitimacy of the process. In response, the Supreme Court has issued notices to the Registrar General of the Delhi High Court and Nandrajog, seeking their responses and directing the production of the Permanent Committee's report for review.
Additionally, the Supreme Court has expressed reservations about the current methodology of designating Senior Advocates, particularly the practice of brief interviews accounting for a significant portion of the evaluation. The bench questioned whether a short interview is sufficient to assess a candidate's suitability and suggested that the process requires serious introspection. Consequently, the matter has been referred to Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna to consider whether a larger bench should be constituted to address these concerns comprehensively.
These developments underscore the need for a transparent and fair system in the designation of Senior Advocates, ensuring that the process upholds the integrity and standards of the legal profession.
