Delhi HC Senior Advocate Designation Process Sparks Controversy Over Alleged Procedural Lapses

NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court's administrative move to designate senior advocates has been mired into controversy, as a key member of the permanent committee reportedly refused to sign the final list of lawyers selected for the coveted title, claiming that the decision was never finalised, and the list was sent ahead without his consent.

Delhi HC Senior Advocate Selection Sparks Allegations of Procedural Lapses

With this, the process and the eventual notification of the designations of 70 lawyers would remain questionable over transparency and adherence to established norms.

This has come at a time when elevation of Delhi high court chief justice Manmohan to the Supreme Court is pending with the government.

Controversy Over Transparency in Senior Advocate Designation Process

According to a report published in the Hindustan Times, the refusal of a committee member to endorse the list has thrown its validity into question. The controversy erupted a day after the Delhi high court reportedly cleared 70 lawyers for senior advocate designation, marking the culmination of a selection process that included interviews of 302 candidates, it said.

However, senior advocate Sudhir Nandrajog, a member of the six-member permanent committee responsible for the selection, had told the newspaper on Saturday that he refused to sign the final list, alleging procedural lapses.

Nandrajog told the publication that he was excluded from the decision-making process, claiming the list was finalised and sent to him for a post-facto signature while he was away on arbitration duties.

"The list never got finalised For two days, I didn't come to the high court because I was in arbitration. The list was made and sent ahead, and after that, they sent it to me for my signature. I refused to sign. The committee had to meet on Mon- day, but it didn't," he told the paper.

In protest, Nandrajog said he resigned from the committee, submitted his resignation to chief justice Manmohan, and intimated chief minister Atishi.

When the newspaper asked why the meeting was convened without his presence, he replied, "You can ask the chief jus tice; he can only answer. I can't"

The permanent committee, entrusted with shortlisting candidates for senior advocate designation, is chaired by chief justice Manmohan and includes Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Yashwant Verma, Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, and senior advocates Mohit Mathur and Nandrajog.

The designation of senior advocates is now granted in compliance with the Supreme Court's 2017 judgment in Indira Jaising vs Supreme Court of India & Ors, which laid down guidelines for a fair and transparent process.

The judgment mandated the creation of permanent committees in high courts and the Supreme Court to assess candidates based on objec- tive criteria such as integrity, legal acumen, years of practice, pro bono work, and published writings.

The Delhi high court's committee for designation of senior advocates (CDSA or permanent committee) reportedly followed these guidelines during the recent process. However, Nandrajog's claims suggest a deviation from the principle of collective decision-making enshrined in the Indira Jaising framework, the paper suggested.

Even if the high court proceeds to notify the designations despite Nandrajog's disclosure, the process is likely to be mired in litigation, casting a shadow over the
legitimacy of the appointments, it claimed.

The publication further claimed under the High Court of Delhi Designation of Senior Advocate Rules, 2024, the chief justice-led committee evaluates proposals for senior advocate designation based on data from the secretariat and interviews with candidates. The committee then submits its report to the full court, which makes the final decision. The registrar general of the high court is then required to notify the designation to the secretary general of the Supreme Court, Bar Council of India, Bar Council of Delhi, registrar general of all high courts and all the principal district and sessions judges subordinate to the high court.