New Delhi, Jan 2 (IANS): The Supreme Court on Thursday reprimanded an advocate for levelling "various scurrilous and unfounded allegations" against the judiciary.
A bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking quashing of the entire process of designation of 70 lawyers as senior advocates undertaken by the Delhi High Court.
The petition, filed by Mumbai-based advocate Mathew J. Nedumpara, said the entire process of designation of lawyers as seniors is vitiated by "favouritism, nepotism, patronage and other illegal and extraneous considerations".
"It is difficult, if not impossible, to find a judge, sitting or retired, of the High Court or Supreme Court, who has his offspring, brother, sister or nephew who has crossed the age of forty remaining to be a plebeian lawyer. The judge would have all his kith and kin anointed as seniors (senior advocates) or judges."
At this, the Justice Gavai-led Bench said: "Mr. Nedumpara, this a court of law. When you address a court of law, make legal arguments and not the arguments only for the purpose of the gallery."
Adjourning the hearing to allow the petitioners to reflect upon the averments made in the petition, the apex court said that "various scurrilous and unfounded allegations have been made against the institution" and if the petition comes up in the same form, action in accordance with law will be taken against all the petitioners.
"We grant four weeks' time to Mr Nedumpara and the other petitioners to take whatever steps as they deem fit in the matter," the bench ordered.
Further, it granted liberty to several petitioners to withdraw and delete them from the array of parties.
In an earlier round of litigation, the Supreme Court had dismissed a plea challenging the designation of senior advocates under the Advocates Act, 1961.
A bench of Justices S.K. Kaul (now retired) and Sudhanshu Dhulia said the system of designation of advocates as 'senior' cannot be said to be untenable or be classified as unreasonable under Article 14 of the Constitution.
"We dismiss the petition with no orders as to cost," said the bench, adding that the plea has been filed under a "misadventure" by the petitioner-in-person, advocate Nedumpara.
Nedumpara’s plea had argued that senior designation has created a class of advocates with special rights and "the same has been seen as reserved only for the kith and kin of judges and senior advocates, politicians, ministers, etc".
The petition said that the designation of advocates as senior advocates under Sections 16 and 23(5) of the Advocates Act, 1961 as well as under the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 creates a "special class of advocates with special rights, privileges and status not available to ordinary advocates" and is unconstitutional being violative of the mandate of equality under Article 14 and the right to practice any profession under Article 19, as well as the right to life under Article 21".