Supreme Court Criticizes Lawyer for Accusations Against Judiciary
Click to start listening
New Delhi, Jan 2 (NationPress) The Supreme Court on Thursday criticized an advocate for making various scurrilous and unfounded allegations against the judiciary.
A bench consisting of Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan was reviewing a public interest litigation (PIL) that aimed to annul the entire process of designating 70 lawyers as senior advocates conducted by the Delhi High Court.
The petition, initiated by Mumbai-based lawyer Mathew J. Nedumpara, claimed that the whole process of awarding senior status to lawyers is marred by favouritism, nepotism, patronage and other illegal and extraneous considerations.
It is challenging, if not impossible, to find a judge, whether sitting or retired, of the High Court or Supreme Court, whose offspring, sibling, or nephew above the age of forty remains an ordinary lawyer. The judge would have all his kith and kin elevated as seniors (senior advocates) or judges.
In response, Justice Gavai remarked: “Mr. Nedumpara, this is a court of law. When you address a court, present legal arguments rather than those meant solely for public spectacle.”
Postponing the hearing to permit the petitioners to reconsider their statements, the apex court mentioned that “various scurrilous and unfounded allegations have been made against the institution” and warned that if the petition is resubmitted unchanged, legal action will be initiated against all petitioners.
“We provide four weeks’ time to Mr. Nedumpara and the other petitioners to take any appropriate actions regarding the matter,” the bench directed.
Moreover, it allowed several petitioners the option to withdraw and remove themselves from the list of parties.
In a previous legal battle, the Supreme Court had dismissed a challenge to the designation of senior advocates under the Advocates Act, 1961.
A bench led by Justices S.K. Kaul (now retired) and Sudhanshu Dhulia stated that the system of giving the status of 'senior' advocates is not untenable and cannot be deemed unreasonable under Article 14 of the Constitution.
“We dismiss the petition without any orders regarding costs,” said the bench, noting that the plea was filed under a “misadventure” by the petitioner-in-person, advocate Nedumpara.
Nedumpara’s argument claimed that the senior designation creates a class of advocates with distinct rights and is seen as exclusive to the kith and kin of judges, senior advocates, politicians, and ministers.
The petition asserted that the classification of advocates as senior under Sections 16 and 23(5) of the Advocates Act, 1961, along with the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, establishes a “special class of advocates” with rights and privileges not granted to ordinary advocates, thus violating the equality principle under Article 14 and the right to practice under Article 19, as well as infringing upon the right to life under Article 21.
