look news india
An important matter was raised in the Supreme Court on Thursday, January 02 after the winter vacation, in which questions were raised on the recent decision of the Delhi High Court to designate 70 lawyers as senior advocates. Senior lawyer Mathews J Nedumpara challenged the decision, alleging nepotism and demanding the court to quash the decision.
Nedumpara’s allegations and plea details
Advocate Mathews Nedumpara and other co-petitioners filed a petition in which they alleged that relatives of judges were being given preference as senior advocates.
- The petition said that this process is not fair and the rights of the Bar members are being affected.
- He also presented a chart before the court regarding the appointments of relatives of judges.
Strong reaction from the bench
Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Vishwanathan’s division bench strongly rejected the arguments of advocate Nedumpara.
- Judges’ question: The bench asked, “How many judges can you name whose children have been made senior advocates?”
- Chart Rejected: The Division Bench refused to accept the chart presented by Nedumpara.
The division bench made it clear that it did not agree with these allegations of the petition and directed lawyer Nedumpara to amend the petition.
court warning
The division bench also said that if the charges were not dropped, the court could take action.
- The court gave time to Nedumpara to modify the petition and also warned the co-applicants to be prepared for a defamation case.
Justice Gavai’s strict comment
When Nedumpara alleged that the Bar Association was afraid of judges, Justice Gavai rejected it with strong objection.
- He said, “This is the Supreme Court, not any club or Azad Maidan. Only legal arguments should be given here.”
- Justice Gavai made it clear that the forum of the court is not for political or personal statements.
Controversy over appointment of senior lawyers of Delhi High Court
The recent appointment of senior lawyers by the Delhi High Court was mired in controversy.
- Disagreement in the Standing Committee:
- A member of the committee resigned claiming that the final list was prepared without his consent.
- The Delhi government’s representative, senior advocate Sudhir Nandrajog, also refused to sign the list.
- Allegations of list tampering:
- It was alleged that the new list was prepared by making changes to the original list.
