Delhi High Court Senior Advocate Designation Sparks Controversy as Committee Member Resigns Over Process Issues
The Delhi High Court’s recent designation of 70 lawyers as Senior Advocates has sparked a procedural controversy following the resignation of Permanent Committee member Sudhir Nandrajog. His decision to step down stems from concerns that the list of designees was finalized without his consent due to procedural lapses.
The Core Issue
Nandrajog, representing the Delhi government, was absent from the final meeting on November 28, where the recommendations were finalized. He contends that the process did not adhere to established rules, emphasizing, “My only grievance is the non-following of the procedure/rules. I have no comments on the list or any individual.”
Sources indicate the list was altered from an earlier draft and presented to the Full Court without his signature. Nandrajog was engaged in arbitration and unavailable when the meeting, initially scheduled for December 2, was advanced.
The Permanent Committee’s Role
The Committee comprises Chief Justice Manmohan, Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Yashwant Varma, Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, and Senior Advocates Mohit Mathur and Sudhir Nandrajog. It interviewed 302 candidates and recommended 71 lawyers for elevation. However, the Full Court ultimately approved 70 designations.
Justifications for Advancing the Meeting
Judges from the Committee explained that the meeting was rescheduled to November 28 due to Chief Justice Manmohan’s impending elevation to the Supreme Court. They emphasized that while Nandrajog was part of earlier deliberations, the urgency necessitated proceeding without him. Given the tight timeline, one judge clarified that the Committee did not want to delay or restart the evaluation process.
Outcome and Next Steps
The Full Court accepted the recommendations signed by five Committee members and reduced the list to 70 lawyers. The official notification is expected shortly. Despite the controversy, the High Court is unlikely to revisit the designations, focusing instead on procedural transparency in future processes.
Nandrajog’s resignation highlights concerns over the integrity of judicial selection procedures, raising questions about the balance between practicality and adherence to established rules.
