Supreme Court flags concerns over powers, composition of Delhi High Court's Senior Designation committee

The Supreme Court on Monday questioned the process followed by the Delhi High Court's permanent committee for designating Senior Advocates [Raman Alias Raman Gandhi v. Registrar General, High Court of Delhi].A Bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan remarked that the role of the permanent committee should be limited to assigning points and not recommending names for designation. That task is the responsibility of the High Court's full court, the top court said. .The Court was hearing a petition challenging the designation of 70 lawyers as Senior Advocates by the Delhi High Court, amid allegations that the final list was finalized without the consent of one of the permanent committee members, Senior Advocate Sudhir Nandrajog..The Court had on February 25 issued notice to the Delhi High Court's Registrar General and to Nandrajog. It had also sought the permanent committee's report in a sealed cover.After reviewing the reports, Justice Oka on Monday pointed out that the committee had made recommendations, which exceeded its mandate under the Supreme Court's ruling in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India.."By which law committee can recommend? In Indira Jaising, there is no power to recommend. It is only to assign points," Justice Oka remarked, asserting that the committee’s job ends with awarding points and that all applications must go before the full court without any recommendations..The Court also referred to its recent ruling in Jitender Kalla wherein it was categorically held that the permanent committee’s authority ends after assigning points and that it cannot assess candidates beyond this prescribed mechanism..The senior designations became mired in controversy after Nandrajog claimed that he was not consulted before the final list of designated advocates was released.According to sources, Nandrajog, also a representative of Delhi government, did not sign the final list which was circulated to the full court for deliberation, as he was busy in an arbitration during the relevant period. It was also claimed that the final list was not the list that was decided upon and that the original list was tampered with.During the hearing of the case on Monday, Nandrajog submitted that the interview process concluded on November 19, 2024, following which a draft list of designated Senior Advocates was circulated on November 25, 2024, by the then Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court. However, a follow-up meeting scheduled for December 2, 2024, never took place, leading to concerns over procedural irregularities.."The interview process ended on November 19, and thereafter, a meeting was held on November 25, during which a draft list was circulated by the then Chief Justice. Another meeting was to be held on December 2, but it never took place," he informed the Court..Upon being informed that similar petitions challenging the process had already been dismissed, Justice Oka questioned whether the specific issue of the permanent committee’s limited powers had been raised in those cases."Was this issue agitated in that? That the committee has no power to recommend? The committee can only make a point-based assessment. It is ultimately the decision of the full court," he asked..The Court also flagged concerns regarding the composition of the permanent committee, noting that it appeared to have six members, which does not align with the Supreme Court's ruling in Indira Jaising that set out guidelines for Senior Advocate designations."How many members are there in the Permanent Committee? The direction is to frame rules in terms of the Indira Jaising judgment. There can't be six members in the committee," it observed..The bench also sought clarity on the “deferred list”, a list of candidates whose designation as Senior Advocates was postponed for future consideration. It directed the Delhi High Court’s counsel to examine whether any part of the Indira Jaising judgment permits deferring certain candidates..The Court directed the Delhi High Court to respond to these concerns and clarify whether its rules align with Supreme Court guidelines on Senior Advocate designations.The matter will be heard next after the submission of Nandrajog’s affidavit and a detailed response from the Delhi High Court..[Read Live Coverage].[Read Order]