Supreme Court Pulls Up Advocate For Alleging Nepotism In Senior Designations For Judges' Relatives, Warns Of Contempt

The Supreme Court today slammed Advocate Mathews J Nedumpara over a plea filed insinuating that it is impossible to find any constitutional court judge (sitting or retired) across the country whose offspring/brother/sister/nephew over 40 yrs of age has not been designated as a senior advocate.The petition was filed challenging the recent senior designations conferred by the Delhi High Court on 70 advocates.To quote the objectionable averment, as read by Nedumpara in Court, "The Parliament came to enact Sections 16 and 23(5)...the unfortunate consequence thereof has been disastrous. It resultantly reversed the process of unification and democratization of the Bar, paving way for hijacking of the Bar and the Bench by a few feudal and powerful families. India today has approx. 14 lakh lawyers of which 1 person is designated as a senior advocate. There is no gain in denying that 95% of the revenue from the industry is monopolized by this one person and this one person is only...in several families, every member is a designated senior. It is difficult if not impossible to find a judge (sitting or retired) of the High Court or Supreme Court who has his offspring/brothers/sister/nephew who has crossed the age of 40 remaining to be a [...] lawyer".A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan, taking offense to the averment in the petition (drafted and sworn by Nedumpara) asked if Nedumpara would like to amend and remove the offending assertions. Following initial reservations from the petitioner's side, the bench sternly warned that it would take appropriate steps in accordance with law against all petitioners for the "scurrilous and unfounded allegations made against the institution" if the petition continues to remain in the same format."Are you going to delete this averment or not? We are not going to spare any petitioner, because they have appended their names. Make up your mind. If the petition comes in the same form, action against each of the petitioners will be taken in accordance with law", said Justice Viswanathan.The matter was adjourned to enable Nedumpara to reflect upon the bench's observations and consult with other petitioners on the future course of action. Notably, a couple of petitioners/counsels sought liberty to withdraw their names from the matter. In response, Justice Gavai remarked, "Even a lawyer who is signatory to such pleadings is equally guilty of contempt".At one point, Nedumpara commented that his only grievance is that the Bar is becoming fearful of judges. Objecting to the same as a comment playing to the gallery, Justice Gavai said, "This is a court of law. Not a boat club or a maidan in Bombay to make speeches. When you address a Court of law, make legal arguments. Not arguments only for the purpose of gallery".To recap, the Senior Advocate designation of 70 lawyers at Delhi High Court was recently embroiled in controversy when one of the Committee members (Senior Advocate Sudhir Nandrajog) resigned claiming that the final list was drafted without his consent. Challenging the appropriate Delhi High Court communication, a plea has been filed before the Supreme Court.Case Title: SHRI MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA AND ORS. Versus THE FULL COURT OF THE HONBLE JUDGES OF THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AND ORS., Diary No. 60205-2024SC Holds Nedumpara Guilty Of Contempt; Dismisses Petition To Abolish Senior Designation Of AdvocatesClick Here To Read/Download Order

Supreme Court Pulls Up Advocate For Alleging Nepotism In Senior Designations For Judges' Relatives, Warns Of Contempt

Debby Jain

Tags