'Nobody gets better treatment due to gown': SC junks plea over lawyers' senior designation

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday said nobody got a better treatment on the basis of their gown and rejected a plea against the Delhi High Court conferring senior designations of 70 lawyers.

A bench of Justices B R Gavai and K Vinod Chandran was hearing a plea filed by advocate Mathews J Nedumpara and others, including many practising lawyers, challenging the conferment of senior designations to the lawyers by the high court in November last year.

"We don't see that anybody gets a better treatment in this court merely because he has a different gown," it observed.

Nedumpara submitted on how lawyers had to be in a queue to get their matters, including bail applications, listed before the Bombay High Court.

He referred to an instance where a bail matter was posted for hearing after almost six weeks by a judge of the Bombay High Court.

Justice Gavai asked whether he was aware that the judge concerned sat till 7 pm in the court to hear matters.

"The judges are also human being… they are trying to do their best," he said.

When Nedumpara said there was a need to appoint more judges for dispensing speedy justice, the bench said, "It is not in our hands to appoint more judges." Nedumpara said his lawyer friends were fearful of the court.

"Nobody is fearful… Lawyers are fearless. Lawyers have led the freedom movement of this country," the bench said.

After Nedumpara referred to a chart, the bench said, "You better get elected to Parliament and pass an enactment removing this." The plea highlighted 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 instant petition challenges Sections 16 and 23(5) of the Advocates Act which creates two classes of lawyers, senior advocates and other advocates which in actual practice has resulted in an unthinkable catastrophe and inequities which Parliament certainly would not have contemplated or foreseen," it said.

While hearing the matter last month, the apex court took exception to the "scurrilous and unfounded allegations" made against judges in the plea.

"From the perusal of the averments made in the memo of petition, we find that very scurrilous and unfounded allegations have been made against the institution," the bench had said.