New Delhi: A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court on Thursday asked a lawyer how many judges’ he can name whose offspring have been designated as senior advocates’ and criticised him for insinuating that relatives’ of judges’ were being designated as senior advocates’ by courts.
The matter came up before a bench comprising Justices B R Gavai and K V Viswanathan. The bench expressed its discontent with the allegations made in the plea against the conferment of senior designations to lawyers and termed it "scurrilous and unfounded".
The bench asked advocate Mathews J Nedumpara, who appeared for the petitioners, “How many judges can you name whose offspring have been designated as senior counsel?”
The bench, referring to the averments in the plea, said it had insinuations against the judges. “We find that various scurrilous, unfounded allegations have been made against the institution," said the bench. The plea filed by Nedumpara and others, including lawyers’, raised a grievance against the senior designations conferred to lawyers.
The plea claimed that 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 40 remaining to be a plebeian lawyer.
During the hearing, Nedumpara vehemently argued that he could bring on record certain data and added that the bar was fearful of judges. At this juncture, the bench, which apparently got irked, said, "Mr Nedumpara, this is a court of law. Not a boat club or Azad Maidan in Bombay (Mumbai) to make speeches".
Justice Gavai said, “When you address a court of law, make legal arguments….", and told the lawyer that the court is willing to grant him the liberty to amend the petition.
The bench asked the lawyer, "Are you going to delete these averments or not?" It further added, "be very clear whether you are going to carry on with these scurrilous averments or not."
Nedumpara said he wanted to reflect on the plea's averments and consult with other petitioners on the future course of action. Concluding the hearing, the bench remarked, "Even a lawyer who is signatory to such pleading is equally guilty of contempt”. Nedumpara said, “Contempt belongs to the dark ages…”.
After hearing submissions, the bench granted petitioners’ four weeks’ time. The plea alleged the classification of lawyers into two categories and conferring a minority with "favours and privileges" was against the concept of equality and the ethos of the Constitution.
The plea sought quashing of the Delhi High Court’s recent conferment of senior designations to about 70 lawyers.
