SC dismisses contempt plea on senior advocate designation in Delhi HC
The petition, filed by advocate Sanjay Dubey, claimed that despite “mandatory directions” issued by the apex court nine months ago, the Delhi High Court had not reprocessed the cases of advocates who were rejected or placed in the deferred list during the 2024 senior designation cycle.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed a contempt plea alleging non-compliance with its April judgment on the process of designating senior advocates in the Delhi High Court.
The petition, filed by advocate Sanjay Dubey, claimed that despite “mandatory directions” issued by the apex court nine months ago, the Delhi High Court had not reprocessed the cases of advocates who were rejected or placed in the deferred list during the 2024 senior designation cycle.
During the hearing, a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant remarked that members of the Bar must not “generate litigation” on such issues. “We do not expect members of the Bar to generate litigation. Don’t file these kinds of petitions. The Chief Justice’s committee is aware of it,” the Bench, also comprising Joymalya Bagchi, told the petitioner.
Follow for more details: munsifdaily.com
The apex court said that most High Courts have already adopted, or are in the process of amending, their rules for senior designations in accordance with the Supreme Court’s judgments.
Dismissing the contempt petition, the CJI Kant-led Bench said, “We have no reason to believe that there will be inordinate delay by the High Court to comply with the judgment.”
Also Read: Police raid Coupang to seize evidence related to major data breach
According to the petitioner, the Delhi High Court has taken no steps to comply with the Supreme Court’s April 15 judgment, which directed the reconstitution of the Permanent Committee and reconsideration of all deferred and rejected applications under the 2024 Senior Designation Rules.
The contempt petition maintained that no action has been initiated by the Delhi High Court to reconsider the cases of 302 applicants from the 2024 cycle.
It also referred to the resignation of senior advocate Sudhir Nandrajog from the Permanent Committee. The petition stated that although Nandrajog’s name appeared on the recommendation sheet, he neither signed nor approved the final list, meaning that “no committee in the eyes of law existed in terms of the rules for designation”.
