The Supreme Court of India on Thursday (Jan 2) slammed a Mumbai-based lawyer for filing a petition making “scurrilous and unfounded allegations” against judges over the conferment of senior designations to lawyers. A bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan was hearing a plea seeking the cancellation of the designation of 70 lawyers as 'senior advocates' by the Delhi High Court. The petitioner, Mathews J Nedumpara, alleged that the entire process was vitiated by "favouritism, nepotism, patronage and other illegal and extraneous considerations".

Advertisment

"It is difficult, if not impossible, to find a judge, sitting or retired, of the High Court or Supreme Court, who has his offspring, brother, sister or nephew who has crossed the age of forty remaining to be a plebeian lawyer. The judge would have all his kith and kin anointed as seniors (senior advocates) or judges," the plea said.

What did the judges say?

However, the argument was met with sharp criticism by the judges, who threatened the advocate with legal action if he failed to make necessary changes to the petition.

Advertisment

“This is a court of law, not a boat club or Azad Maidan in Bombay for speeches. When you address this court, you should present legal arguments, not statements meant for the gallery,” said Justice BR Gavai.

Also read: Elon Musk accuses UK PM Keir Starmer of failing to bringing rape gangs to justice

“If you do not amend the petition, we may take appropriate steps as necessary,” the bench warned.

Advertisment

It also asked for clarity regarding the future course of the case. “Are you going to delete these allegations or not? Be clear about whether you want to proceed with these statements or not,” the bench warned.

Also read: Delhi man beaten to death after dispute over loud music on New Year’s Eve

The petitioner challenged the provisions under the Advocates Act, particularly Sections 16 & 23. The plea argued that the designation of some advocates as 'seniors' by the courts creates an unconstitutional division, leading to inequities and privileges for a select group of lawyers, thus defeating the principles of equality enshrined in the Constitution.

(With inputs from agencies)