Delhi HC: Controversy casts shadow over course of for senior advocate designation
The method of designating senior advocates within the Delhi excessive court docket has plunged into controversy with a key member of the everlasting committee refusing to signal the ultimate listing of legal professionals slated for the celebrated title claiming that the identical was by no means finalised and despatched forward with out his consent.
This unprecedented improvement casts a shadow over the method and the eventual notification of designations of 70 legal professionals, coinciding with the approaching elevation of Delhi excessive court docket chief justice Manmohan to the Supreme Court docket.
The controversy erupted a day after the Delhi excessive court docket reportedly cleared 70 legal professionals for senior advocate designation, marking the end result of a range course of that included interviews of 302 candidates. Nevertheless, senior advocate Sudhir Nandrajog, a member of the six-member everlasting committee chargeable for the choice, informed Hindustan Instances on Saturday that he refused to signal the ultimate listing, alleging procedural lapses.
Nandrajog mentioned he was excluded from the decision-making course of, claiming the listing was finalised and despatched to him for a post-facto signature whereas he was away on arbitration duties. “The listing by no means received finalised. For 2 days, I didn’t come to the excessive court docket as a result of I used to be in arbitration. The listing was made and despatched forward, and after that, they despatched it to me for my signature. I refused to signal. The committee needed to meet on Monday, but it surely didn’t,” he mentioned.
In protest, Nandrajog mentioned he had resigned from the committee, submitted his resignation to chief justice Manmohan, and in addition intimated the Delhi chief minister Atishi. Requested why the assembly was convened with out his presence, he replied: “You may ask the chief justice; he can solely reply. I can’t.”
This controversy has forged an unprecedented shadow over the designation course of, elevating questions on transparency and adherence to established norms. The ultimate listing of senior advocates, together with 11 ladies and a number of other distinguished practitioners, was launched on Friday following a full court docket assembly of all Delhi excessive court docket judges. Nevertheless, the refusal of a committee member to endorse the listing has now thrown its validity into query.
The everlasting committee, tasked with shortlisting candidates for senior advocate designation, is chaired by chief justice Manmohan and consists of justices Vibhu Bakhru and Yashwant Verma, further solicitor normal Chetan Sharma, and senior advocates Mohit Mathur and Sudhir Nandrajog.
The controversy comes as chief justice Manmohan’s identify has been really helpful by the Supreme Court docket collegium for elevation to the apex court docket, including a layer of intrigue to the unfolding occasions. The complete court docket assembly for the senior designation had taken place on Friday, only a day after the collegium picked justice Manmohan for the Supreme Court docket, highlighting the highest court docket at the moment has just one decide from the Delhi excessive court docket.
The designation of senior advocates follows the Supreme Court docket’s 2017 judgment in Indira Jaising Vs Supreme Court docket of India & Ors, which laid down tips for a good and clear course of. The judgment mandated the creation of everlasting committees in excessive courts and the Supreme Court docket to evaluate candidates primarily based on goal standards similar to integrity, authorized acumen, years of follow, professional bono work, and printed writings.
The Delhi excessive court docket’s committee for designation of senior advocates (CDSA or everlasting committee) reportedly adopted these tips throughout the current course of, conducting interviews over 5 days earlier this month. Nevertheless, Nandrajog’s claims counsel a deviation from the precept of collective decision-making enshrined within the Indira Jaising framework. Even when the excessive court docket proceeds to inform the designations regardless of Nandrajog’s disclosure, the method is more likely to be mired in litigation, casting a shadow over the legitimacy of the appointments.
Below the Excessive Court docket of Delhi Designation of Senior Advocate Guidelines, 2024, the chief justice-led committee evaluates proposals for senior advocate designation primarily based on knowledge from the secretariat and interviews with candidates. The committee then submits its report back to the total court docket, which makes the ultimate determination.
The registrar normal of the excessive court docket is then required to inform the designation to the secretary normal of the Supreme Court docket, Bar Council of India, Bar Council of Delhi, registrar normal of all excessive courts and in addition to all of the principal district and classes judges subordinate to the excessive court docket.
