Appointments & TransfersNews

On 27-03-2019, Supreme Court of India has designated a total number of 37 Advocates as Senior Advocates.

Below is the list of the Advocates:

  • Ms. Madhavi Goradia Divan
  • Mr. R. Balasubramanian
  • Ms. Anitha Shenoy
  • Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta
  • Mr. Jugal Kishore Tikamchand Gilda
  • Mr. Sanjay Parikh
  • Mr. Preetesh Kapur
  • Mr. Ashok Kumar Sharma
  • Mr. Deepak Madhusudan Nargolkar
  • Mr. Ajit Shankarrao Bhasme
  • Mr. Nikhil Nayyar
  • Mr. S. Wasim A. Qadri
  • Mr. M. G. Ramachandran
  • Mr. Manish Singhvi
  • Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan
  • Mr. Mohan Venkatesh Katarki
  • Mr. Nakul Dewan
  • Mr. Devadatt Kamat
  • Mr. Anip Sachthey
  • Mr. Anupam Lal Das
  • Mr. G. Venkatesh Rao
  • Mr. Jayanth Muth Raj
  • Mr. Arijit Prasad
  •  Mr. Jay Savla
  • Ms. Aparajita Singh
  • Dr. Menaka Guruswamy
  • Mr. Siddhartha Dave
  • Mr. Siddharth Bhatnagar
  • Mr. C. N. Sreekumar
  • Ms. Aishwarya Bhati
  • Mr. Santosh Paul
  • Mr. Gaurav Bhatia
  • Mr. Bharat Sangal
  • Mr. Vinay Prabhakar Navare
  • Mr. Manoj Swarup
  • Mr. Ritin Rai
  • Ms. Priya Hingorani

Out of the above mentioned 37 Advocates, there are 6 women Advocates in the list:

  • Ms. Madhavi Goradia Divan
  • Ms. Anitha Shenoy
  • Ms. Aparajita Singh
  • Dr. Menaka Guruswamy
  • Ms. Aishwarya Bhati
  • Ms. Priya Hingorani

With the intent to make the exercise of senior designation more objective, fair and transparent so as to give full effect to consideration of merit and ability, standing at the bar and specialized knowledge or exposure in any field of law, Supreme Court laid down elaborate guidelines for the system of designation of Senior Advocates in the Supreme Court as well as all the High Courts of India. [Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India, 2017 9 SCC 766, decided on 12-10-2017]

Supreme Court Guidelines to Regulate Conferment of Designation of Senior Advocates, 2018


[Dated: 29-03-2019]

Supreme Court of India

Hot Off The PressNews

Supreme Court: Holding advocate Mathew Nedumpara guilty of contempt, the bench of RF Nariman and Vineet Saran, JJ has barred Nedumpara from practicing as an advocate in the Supreme Court for one year.

The Court had also sentenced Nedumpara to three months in jail, it, however,  suspended the sentence taking note of the unconditional apology tendered by him as also his undertaking that he will never attempt to browbeat any judge either in the Supreme Court or the Bombay High Court.

The bench, meanwhile, issued a fresh contempt notice to Nedumpara and three others for scandalous allegations against both the judges of the bench.

Noticing that serious allegations have been levelled against both the members of the bench in a letter which was received by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and other judges of the Court, the Bench requested the CJI to constitute an appropriate bench to hear the fresh contempt issue saying scandalous allegations have been levelled against both the members of the present bench.

The Court had, on March 12, issued notice to Nedumpara after he had argued before the Court:

“Judges of the Court are wholly unfit to designate persons as Senior Advocates, as they only designate Judges’ relatives as Senior Advocates.”

He also took the name of Senior Advocate Fali S. Nariman. When cautioned by the Court, he took his name again. Thereafter, on being questioned by the Court as to what the relevance of taking the name of Fali S. Nariman was, he promptly denied having done so. However, when others present in Court confirmed having heard him take the Senior Advocate’s name, he attempted to justify the same, but failed to offer any adequate explanation.

Considering that Justice Nariman is the son of Senior Advocate Fali S. Nariman, the Court said that:

“the only reason for taking the learned Senior Advocate’s name, without there being any relevance to his name in the present case, is to browbeat the Court and embarrass one of us.”

The Court also took note of various other orders that showed that it was not the first time that Nedumpara has attempted to browbeat and insult Judges of the Court. The Court said:

“In point of fact, the style of this particular advocate is to go on arguing, quoting Latin maxims, and when he finds that the Court is not with him, starts becoming abusive.”

Holding Nedumpara guilty of contempt, the Court directed that the judgment is to be circulated to the Chief Justice of every High Court in this country, the Bar Council of India, and the Bar Council of Kerala.

The contempt order was issued during the hearing of a Writ Petition that sought a second review of the judgment in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India through Secretary General, (2017) 9 SCC 766. On the said petition, the Court said:

“Even otherwise, it is settled law that an Article 32 petition does not lie against the judgment of this Court. We are also of the view that Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961 is a provision which cannot be said to be unconstitutional and the designation of Senior Advocate cannot be as a matter of bounty or as a matter of right.”


Also read the guidelines issued by the 3-judge bench of Ranjan Gogoi, RF Nariman and Navin Sinha, JJ for the system of designation of Senior Advocates in the Supreme Court as well as all the High Courts of India

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: Holding advocate Mathew Nedumpara guilty of contempt, the bench of RF Nariman and Vineet Saran, JJ has issued notice to Nedumpara as to the punishment to be imposed upon him for committing contempt in the face of the Court. Notice returnable within two weeks from today. The Court said that the conduct of this kind deserves punishment which is severe and though it could have punished Nedumpara by this order itself, it was issuing notice in the interest of justice.

Nedumpara had argued before the Court:

“Judges of the Court are wholly unfit to designate persons as Senior Advocates, as they only designate Judges’ relatives as Senior Advocates.”

He also took the name of Senior Advocate Fali S. Nariman. When cautioned by the Court, he took his name again. Thereafter, on being questioned by the Court as to what the relevance of taking the name of Fali S. Nariman was, he promptly denied having done so. However, when others present in Court confirmed having heard him take the Senior Advocate’s name, he attempted to justify the same, but failed to offer any adequate explanation

Considering that Justice Nariman is the son of Senior Advocate Fali S. Nariman, the Court said that:

“the only reason for taking the learned Senior Advocate’s name, without there being any relevance to his name in the present case, is to browbeat the Court and embarrass one of us.”

The Court also took note of various other orders that showed that it was not the first time that Nedumpara has attempted to browbeat and insult Judges of the Court. The Court said:

“In point of fact, the style of this particular advocate is to go on arguing, quoting Latin maxims, and when he finds that the Court is not with him, starts becoming abusive.”

Holding Nedumpara guilty of contempt, the Court directed that the judgment is to be circulated to the Chief Justice of every High Court in this country, the Bar Council of India, and the Bar Council of Kerala, through the Secretary General, within a period of four weeks from today.

The contempt order was issued during the hearing of a Writ Petition that sought a second review of the judgment in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India through Secretary General, (2017) 9 SCC 766. On the said petition, the Court said:

“Even otherwise, it is settled law that an Article 32 petition does not lie against the judgment of this Court. We are also of the view that Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961 is a provision which cannot be said to be unconstitutional and the designation of Senior Advocate cannot be as a matter of bounty or as a matter of right.”

[National Lawyers’ Campaign for Judicial Transparency v. Union of India, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 411, decided on 12.03.2019]

To read the guidelines issued by the 3-judge bench of Ranjan Gogoi, RF Nariman and Navin Sinha, JJ for the system of designation of Senior Advocates in the Supreme Court as well as all the High Courts of India, click here.

Hot Off The PressNews

Amending the direction given on 20.09.2017, Chief Justice Dipak Misra said that apart from the advocates-on-records (AoRs), junior counsel can also mention cases for urgent hearing. Stating that mentioning is the beginning of good law practice, CJI said:

“junior advocates should also learn the art of mentioning.”

Earlier, the CJI had put an end to the practice of allowing senior lawyers to mention cases seeking their out-of-turn listing and hearing and had directed that only Advocates-on-Record (AoR) would be authorised to mention cases for out-of-turn hearing. The said direction was given after a junior lawyer, after being denied the permission to mention his case, complained that while his senior colleagues were being allowed to mention matters for urgent hearing, junior members of the bar were denied such opportunities.

Source: PTI

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: With the intent to make the exercise of senior designation more objective, fair and transparent so as to give full effect to consideration of merit and ability, standing at the bar and specialized knowledge or exposure in any field of law, the 3-judge bench of Ranjan Gogoi, RF Nariman and Navin Sinha, JJ laid down elaborate guidelines for the system of designation of Senior Advocates in the Supreme Court as well as all the High Courts of India.

The Court said:

“The sole yardstick by which we propose to introduce a set of guidelines to govern the matter is the need for maximum objectivity in the process so as to ensure that it is only and only the most deserving and the very best who would be bestowed the honour and dignity. The credentials of every advocate who seeks to be designated as a Senior Advocate or whom the Full Court suo motu decides to confer the honour must be subject to an utmost strict process of scrutiny leaving no scope for any doubt or dissatisfaction in the matter.”

Committee for Designation of Senior Advocates

All matters relating to designation of Senior Advocates in the Supreme Court and all the High Courts of the country shall be dealt with by a Permanent Committee to be known as “Committee for Designation of Senior Advocates” headed by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India and consisting of two senior-most Judges of the Supreme Court of India (or High Court(s), as the case may be) and the learned Attorney General for India (Advocate General of the State in case of a High Court). The above four Members of the Permanent Committee will nominate another Member of the Bar to be the fifth Member of the Permanent Committee.

Permanent Secretariat

The said Committee shall have a permanent Secretariat the composition of which will be decided by the Chief Justice of India or the Chief Justices of the High Courts, as may be, in consultation with the other Members of the Permanent Committee. The Permanent Secretariat will:

  • Compile relevant information regarding the advocate
  • Publish the proposal of designation of a particular Advocate in the official website of the concerned Court inviting the suggestions/views of other stakeholders in the proposed designation
  • Put up the case before the Permanent Committee

Criterion for designation

The reputation, conduct, integrity of the Advocate(s) concerned including his/her participation in pro-bono work; reported judgments in which the concerned Advocate(s) had appeared; the number of such judgments for the last five years, will be considered for designating an advocate as a Senior Advocate.

Process of designation

  • The point based assessment by the Permanent Committee will be made by:
    • examining each case in the light of the data provided by the Secretariat of the Permanent Committee;
    • interviewing the concerned Advocate.
  • All the names that are listed before the Permanent Committee/cleared by the Permanent Committee will go to the Full Court.
  • Voting by secret ballot will not normally be resorted to by the Full Court except when unavoidable. In the event of resort to secret ballot decisions will be carried by a majority of the Judges who have chosen to exercise their preference/choice.

Review of application

All cases that have not been favourably considered by the Full Court may be reviewed/reconsidered after expiry of a period of two years following the manner indicated above as if the proposal is being considered afresh;

Recall of Designation

In the event a Senior Advocate is guilty of conduct which according to the Full Court disentitles the Senior Advocate concerned to continue to be worthy of the designation the Full Court may review its decision to designate the concerned person and recall the same.

The present order of the Court is an outcome of the petition filed by Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, who had also served as Additional Solicitor General for the Union of India. In the petition she contended that the present system of designation of Senior Advocates in the Supreme Court of India was flawed and the system needed to be rectified and acceptable parameters laid down. [Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India, 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1223, decided on 12.10.2017]

Hot Off The PressNews

On 20.09.2017, putting an end to the practice of allowing senior lawyers to mention cases seeking their out-of-turn listing and hearing, Chief Justice Dipak Misra directed that now onwards only Advocates-on-Record (AoR) would be authorised to mention cases for out-of-turn hearing.

The said direction is an outcome of an incident that occurred yesterday in the Chief Justice’s court after some lawyers were denied permission to mention cases. A junior lawyer complained that while his senior colleagues were being allowed to mention matters for urgent hearing, junior members of the bar were denied such opportunities.

Source: PTI

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: In the matter where the transparency in the process of designation of senior advocates was sought, the Court directed the matter to be listed in the month of February, 2017 for final hearing along with another related matter filed before the Delhi High Court.

A Writ Petition (C) No.6331 of 2016 titled National Lawyers’ Campaign for Judicial Transparency and Reforms & Anr. Vs. Bar Council of India was filed before the Delhi High Court challenging the constitutional validity of Sections 16 and 23(5) of the Advocates Act, 1961 which provide the statutory basis for designation of lawyers as senior advocates. Hence, the Court said that if the source of power for such designation is itself under challenge it would be more appropriate to hear the matters together by transferring the petition pending in the High Court to this Court.

The 3-judge bench of T.S. Thakur, CJ and Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and L. Nageswar Rao, JJ said that the issues touching designation of lawyers as per the prevalent procedure appears to be causing considerable dissatisfaction among a section of the bar which fact is evident from the large number of interventions made in these proceedings and an equally large number of solutions proposed at the bar for improvement of the system. [Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India, 2017 SCC OnLine SC 3, order dated 02.01.2017]