Supreme Court rejects "misadventurous" plea to abolish Senior Advocate system

The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a plea by six advocates including advocate Mathews Nedumpara and two others seeking the abolition of the Senior Advocate designation system [Mathews J Nedumpara and ors vs Union of India and ors].A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sudhanshu Dhulia and CT Ravikumar termed the plea a "a continuation of the past misadventures" by advocate Nedumpara. "The challenge that the aforesaid classification is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution is untenable since Article 14 permits the reasonable classification of people by the legislature. The seniority of advocates is premised on a standardised metric of merit aimed at forwarding the standards of the profession ... We have, thus, not the slightest hesitation in coming to the conclusion that this writ petition is a misadventure largely of petitioner No.1 in continuation of some of his past misadventures ... We dismiss the petition with no order as to costs", the Court directed.The Court had reserved its verdict in the matter on October 4 this year, after a day-long hearing..The plea was filed by advocates Mathews Nedumpara, Rohini Mohit Amin, Maria Nedumpara, Rajesh Vishnu Adrekar, Hemali Suresh Kurne, and Sharad Vusudeo Koli, along with two others, an entrepreneur named Karan Kaushik, and a Chartered Accountant, Manisha Nimesh Mehta (petitioners)..The petitioners challenged the Senior designation system on the ground that it created a special class of advocates with special rights, privileges, and status that were not available to ordinary advocates. This was unconstitutional and violated the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, they contended. They further asserted that it violated the right to practice one's profession under Article 19 and the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. As a result of the senior advocate designation system, the legal industry was being monopolised by a "small cabal" of designated advocates, leaving the vast majority of meritorious lawyers as "ordinary plebeians" who were meted out discriminatory treatment, the petitioners said.Only the relatives of judges, politicians, and existing senior counsel benefitted from this system, they submitted. They argued that this system has destroyed the justice delivery system beyond redemption. The ambition to get such a designation makes younger members of the bar a slave to the bench, the petitioners further stressed.Moreover, lawyers resort to sycophancy and cavass for votes, while those practicing in the lower judiciary are out of contention for the gown, they added. Therefore, such a cabal must be put to an end and the senior designation system abolished, the petitioners asserted. .JudgmentThe top court at the outset noted that the pleadings were almost reckless in character. "The vast number of first-generation lawyers who attained prominence and were designated as Senior Advocates are sought to be ignored – something which has grown over a period of time ... it has sought to be made out as if the legal profession in India has long been feudalistic and a monopoly of certain higher castes and certain families ... These averments are contemptuous in character".It added that the pleadings were completely devoid of merit and justification, with allegations against all and sundry. "This is more so in the conspectus of the large growth in the legal profession where a large number of firstgeneration lawyers have made their mark. These lawyers, some of them young ones, have come from National Law Schools and other prominent Law Schools.".The bench explained that the senior designation system is a discernible and transparent mechanism devised by the bench. "A special entitlement to address the Court is coupled with restrictions on many acts which they could otherwise perform as advocates ... The seniority of advocates is premised on a standardised metric of merit aimed at forwarding the standards of the profession ... the classification of advocates and the mechanism to grant seniority to advocates is not based on any arbitrary, artificial or evasive grounds.".The Supreme Court had in March 2019 barred Nedumpara from practicing before it for a year after finding him guilty of browbeating judges.At the time, the top court also dismissed a plea by the National Lawyers Campaign for Judicial Transparency and Reforms, which Nedumpara heads, challenging the current system of the designation of lawyers as Senior Advocates.In the instant verdict, the top court lamented that it appeared that Nedumpara had not learnt from the earlier rounds of litigation. "It appears that the judgments and orders passed earlier do not seem to have had any salutary or counselling effect on petitioner No.1 for any self-introspection, but he seeks to carry on a vilification campaign against all and sundry. Obviously, the system is not able to correct petitioner No.1 in his approach.".[Read judgment]