'How many judges' children have been made seniors': Supreme Court on plea against senior designations

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday slammed a lawyer for insinuating that relatives’ of judges’ were being designated as senior advocates’ by courts, and asked him as to how many judges’ he can name whose offspring got the title.

Terming his allegations as 'scurrilous and unfounded', a bench of Justices B R Gavai and K V Viswanathan expressed its serious discontent with the plea against the conferment of senior designations to lawyers.

The bench asked advocate Mathews J Nedumpara, who appeared in person for himself and other 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,” the bench said.

The plea filed by Nedumpara and others, 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”.

The bench told him, “When you address a court of law, make legal arguments.”

The bench said 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 asked, “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…”.

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. It sought quashing of the Delhi High Court’s recent conferment of senior designations to about 70 lawyers.