A fresh storm has erupted in the legal fraternity as a petition has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the Delhi High Court's decision to confer the prestigious "Senior Advocate" title on 70 lawyers. The move, which was intended to recognize excellence, has instead been marred by allegations of procedural flaws and internal discord.
The controversy came to light when petitioners sought an urgent hearing before Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna. However, Justice Khanna declined an oral mention for immediate listing, urging the petitioners to follow protocol by formally circulating a letter. "Please circulate a letter seeking listing. There is no oral mentioning," he remarked.
The designation process, carried out on November 29, involved the Delhi High Court's Full Court, which interviewed 302 candidates before selecting 70. However, the celebrations were short-lived as dissent brewed within the Permanent Committee—the body tasked with screening and recommending candidates for the prestigious title.
Shockwaves were sent through the legal community when a key committee member, Senior Advocate Sudhir Nandrajog, resigned in protest, alleging that the final list was unauthorized and lacked his consent. Nandrajog, who represents the Delhi government, was reportedly absent during the list’s finalization due to arbitration duties. This absence, according to insiders, left the process vulnerable to tampering, further fueling the dispute.
The Permanent Committee, chaired by Chief Justice Manmohan, includes Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Yashwant Varma, Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, and Senior Advocate Mohit Mathur. Despite its illustrious composition, the committee has been caught in the crossfire of allegations, with reports suggesting that disagreements among members led to fractures in the process.
For many in the legal profession, the title of "Senior Advocate" is not just an accolade but a badge of honor reflecting years of dedication and expertise. This controversy has cast a shadow over the integrity of the selection process, leaving both the legal community and the newly designated seniors grappling with uncertainty.
This episode serves as a poignant reminder of the need for transparency and consensus in decisions that shape the legal profession. As the case now awaits its turn in the Supreme Court, all eyes are on the judiciary to ensure justice prevails—both for the petitioners and for the sanctity of the Senior Advocate designation.
