Delhi HC notifies 70 senior advocates amid questions on transparency

The notification, dated November 29, was issued late on December 1, raising questions about the timeline and transparency of the process

The Delhi high court on Sunday evening notified the designation of 70 lawyers as senior advocates, despite a shadow of controversy hanging over the process after a key member of the permanent committee refused to sign the final list, claiming that it was sent ahead without his final consent, and subsequently resigned in protest.

The present controversy has unfolded against the backdrop of Delhi high court chief justice Manmohan’s recent recommendation for elevation to the Supreme Court. (HT Archive)

The notification, dated November 29, was issued late on December 1, raising questions about the timeline and transparency of the process.

The controversy stems from objections raised by senior advocate Sudhir Nandrajog, a member of the six-member permanent committee responsible for recommending names to the high court. Nandrajog had refused to sign the final list, saying it was prepared in his absence while he was engaged in arbitration proceedings. He later resigned from the committee, alleging procedural flaws.

On Sunday, Nandrajog told HT, “I have not received any response from the high court yet on whether my resignation has been accepted or not. I have quit, and it’s the end of the matter as far as I am concerned. Everything took place behind my back. I don’t even know what happened. That’s it.”

The designation process for senior advocates is governed by the Supreme Court’s 2017 judgment in Indira Jaising vs Supreme Court of India, which mandates transparency, fairness and adherence to established criteria. The judgment mandated the creation of permanent committees in high courts and the Supreme Court to assess candidates based on objective criteria such as integrity, legal acumen, years of practice, pro bono work, and published writings.

The present controversy has unfolded against the backdrop of Delhi high court chief justice Manmohan’s recent recommendation for elevation to the Supreme Court, adding further significance to the issue.

People in the high court administration aware of the matter explained that following the news of chief justice Manmohan’s recommendation for elevation to the Supreme Court, an emergency meeting was called on November 28, advancing the originally scheduled date of December 2.

“The permanent committee deliberated and finalised the evaluations of candidates as it could not defer the process, with chief justice Manmohan’s elevation to the apex court expected soon. The full court accepted the report signed by the five members and cleared 70 lawyers for the designation,” said one official.

However, the issue drew criticism from Ved Prakash Sharma, co-chairman of the Bar Council of India (BCI) and Bar Council of Delhi’s (BCD) representative to BCI, calling the process “unfair”.

“The permanent committee is a recommendatory body. It has to make recommendations to the full court, which then discusses the names and has the prerogative to comment on them. However, this process appears to have been bypassed, with the full court mechanically approving the list without a discussion. It is unclear if the full court was informed about Nandrajog’s dissent. If it was not, this constitutes a significant procedural lapse,” Sharma said.

He further pointed out that deserving advocates may have been left out due to the alleged irregularities, while undeserving ones found a place on the list. He added that BCD is planning to write a formal representation to the chief justice to bring these concerns to his attention.

Sharma highlighted that if Nandrajog’s objections were not communicated to the full court, it could put a question mark on the validity of the process. “What was the use of having a six-member committee if the views of one member were completely overlooked?” he said.

BCD chair Surya Prakash Khatri struck a more cautious note. “If all conditions have been fulfilled, then we cannot say anything until we have solid evidence against a lawyer. We don’t have any facts in writing yet. If something comes to light, we will call a meeting and discuss the matter,” Khatri said.