Advocates act

Section 16

Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court Of India Through Secretary General And OthersSupreme Court
Of IndiaOct 12, 2017------------------2017 SCC 9 766----Writ Petition (C) No. 454 of 2015 with Nos. 33 and
819 of 2016 and TC (C) No. 1 of 2017, decided on October 12, 2017

Facts

The petitioner, who has been practicing in the Supreme Court of India, challenges the system
of designation of Senior Advocates in the Supreme Court. The petitioner believes that the cur
rent system is flawed and violates Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution. The petitioner s
eeks the establishment of a permanent Selection Committee and the appointment of a Search
Committee to identify and designate Senior Advocates based on specific criteria.

Issues

 Whether the system of designation of Senior Advocates in the Supreme Court is arbitr
ary and unconstitutional?
 Whether a permanent Selection Committee should be established for the designation o
f Senior Advocates?
 Whether a Search Committee should be appointed to identify and designate Senior Ad
vocates based on specific criteria?
 Whether the decision taken in the Full Court to designate Senior Advocates should be
reconsidered?

Arguments

The petitioner argues that the current system of designation of Senior Advocates is arbitrary a
nd violates the principles of diversity. The petitioner proposes the establishment of a permane
nt Selection Committee and a Search Committee to ensure a fair and transparent process of d
esignation. The petitioner also argues that the decision taken in the Full Court should be reco
nsidered to include all advocates who received recommendations from at least five Judges of
the Supreme Court.

Ruling

The Supreme Court rules that the existing system of designation of Senior Advocates is not a
genuine quality accreditation scheme. The Court acknowledges the need for uniform guidelin
es to govern the designation of Senior Advocates in all courts of the country. The Court also s
ets specific criteria for the designation of Senior Advocates, including a minimum of 10 years
of practice at the Bar. The Court leaves open the possibility of reconsidering the guidelines in
the future.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court disposes of the writ petition and establishes guidelines for the designatio
n of Senior Advocates

National Lawyers Cam... v. Union Of India And O...Supreme Court Of IndiaMar 12, 2019

CITATION CODES

2019 SCC ONLINE SC 411

CASE NO.
Writ Petition (C) No. 191 of 2019
DISPOSITION
Dismissed
ADVOCATES

RABIN MAJUMDER
JUDGES

Rohinton Fali Nariman

Vineet Saran, JJ.

ACTS

SECTION 14 CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT

SECTION 16 ADVOCATES ACT 1961

ARTICLE 226 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT 1971

ARTICLE 215 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

ARTICLE 32 A CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

Case Summary

In the Writ Petition, the counsel for the petitioners, Shri Mathews Nedumpara, alleged that th
e Court's Judges were unfit to designate Senior Advocates, claiming they only designated rela
tives. He named Shri Fali S. Nariman, despite being cautioned by the Court, and later denied
doing so. The Court believes the purpose of this was to intimidate and embarrass the Court an
d one of its members. The Court also noted this was not the first instance of such behavior fro
m Shri Nedumpara.

Case Proceedings

Shri Nedumpara appeared before the Court on 22 October, 2018, stating that Rs. 80 lakhs wo
uld be paid within four weeks. However, on 14 November, 2018, he mentioned the same matt
er before the Court, without informing them that the S.L.P. had already stood dismissed. He h
as also been found to have misconducted himself before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bomba
y and the Bombay High Court.

Contempt of Court

The Court directed the registry to issue a notice to show cause to Mr. Nedumpara Mathews,
Advocate, asking why proceedings should not be adopted against him under the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971. Mr. Nedumpara's conduct was deemed as gross contempt of the Court, nec
essitating action as per the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971.

Allegations Against the Court

Mr. Nedumpara filed an application requesting that a Single Judge of the Bombay High Court
recuse himself from hearing matters in which Advocate Nedumpara appears. This application
was rejected as the grounds were baseless and unfounded. It was also noted that Advocate Ne
dumpara made reckless, irresponsible, and contemptuous allegations against the Bench and th
e opponents.

Conclusion

The Writ Petition was dismissed as it was not maintainable. The Court also noted that prayers
(b), (d), and (e) were clearly contemptuous, and an attempt to halt the administration of justic
e. When contempt is committed in the face of the Court, judges are not helpless. Instant actio
n may be necessary to maintain the honour and dignity of the Court.
Section 17