New Delhi: In an order passed recently, the Supreme Court of India dismissed a contempt petition filed against the Delhi High Court and members of its Committee for Designation of Senior Advocates. The petition had sought action for alleged non-compliance with the directions issued in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (2017) regarding transparency and objectivity in the process of conferring senior designation. A Bench comprising Hon’ble Justice Surya Kant and Hon’ble Justice Joymalya Bagchi held that no case of contempt was made out against the High Court or its committee members.
The Bench observed that contempt jurisdiction cannot be invoked merely on the basis of dissatisfaction with procedural aspects relating to the senior-designation process, stating:
“Contempt is a matter between the Court and the alleged contemnor. Unless there is wilful disobedience, no proceedings can be sustained. What is alleged here does not fall within the parameters of contempt.”
The petitioner contended that the Delhi High Court had failed to follow the mandate of the Indira Jaising judgment, particularly concerning the requirement of uploading detailed evaluation criteria, voting patterns, and marks awarded to applicants. It was argued that the non-publication of such data violated the transparency requirements prescribed by the Supreme Court for senior designation across all High Courts and the Supreme Court.
Rejecting the plea, the Supreme Court reiterated the settled legal position on the limited scope of contempt jurisdiction, holding that procedural disagreement or perceived inadequacy of compliance could not be equated with wilful disobedience. The Court observed:
“We do not find any act amounting to deliberate violation. The remedy, if any, lies elsewhere in law. Contempt jurisdiction cannot be converted into an appellate forum.”
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the contempt petition while permitting the petitioner to pursue other remedies available in law, such as submitting a representation before the appropriate authority or filing a substantive petition challenging the procedural rules, if warranted.
The order further noted that the Committee for Designation of Senior Advocates continues to function under the framework laid down in Indira Jaising, and any challenge to the process must be addressed through proper judicial review rather than through contempt proceedings.
Case Details:
Case Title: Sanjay Dubey v. The Full Reference of the Hon’ble Judges of the High Court of Delhi, Diary No. 60527/2025
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Joymalya Bagchi
Date of Order: 05 December 2025
