Criminal Appeal No. – of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (CRL.) No. 4299 of 2024)

*Abolition of Senior Designation*

An open letter.

*Mathews J Nedumpara*

98205 35428

10.03.2025.

To

*The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India*

May it please your Lordship,

Sub: Criminal Appeal No. – of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (CRL.) No. 4299 of 2024)

Jitender@Kalla Appellant

Versus

State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Ors.. Respondent

1.A division bench of this Hon’ble Court consisting of their Lordships Justice A S Oka and Justice A G Masih while disposing of the aforesaid criminal appeal has been pleased to direct the registry of the Court to place a copy of their judgment before your Lordship to consider whether the issues flagged by the Bench deserve to be considered by a Bench of appropriate strength.

2.The reading of the judgment has been a matter of mixed emotions for me. I felt vindicated to some extent since the Bench headed by Justice Oka was pleased to seemingly accept the plea which I have been putting forward for the last more than a decade, in a number of petitions which I instituted in the name of the NLC and on my own behalf, that if designation is an honor conferred by a Court, it will be preposterous for the Court to legislate, nay, lay down procedures as if the Court, in designating a lawyer, is conducting a selection for appointment to a post in the service of the Supreme Court.

3.There is yet another silver lining. In the multitude of petitions which I instituted in the Supreme Court and argued by myself, my plea was that real advocacy is in the conduct of trials and not in arguing an appeal. Today what we glorify as legal legends, the “hair splitting” constitutional lawyers are mere pygmies compared to the giants in the trial court. In my career as a litigant-in-person since 1979 and a lawyer since 1984, I have not come across any titans in the Supreme Court or High Courts. But I have had the great fortune of coming across real legends in the trial courts. Inspired by them only did I join law.

4.But for what is stated above, the judgment authored by Justice Oka is a painful and tedious reading. Tedious because what could have been stated in a few pages turned out to run into 49 pages. I was pained because the Bench missed the obvious, missed the wood for the trees. Judges, even of the stature of Justice Oka, respected and adored by one and all for his Lordship’s fairness and infinite wisdom, could not see the enormous damage the system of judges anointing lawyers as senior advocates has caused to our justice delivery system. The judges designating lawyers and the collegium system where the judges appoint themselves are singularly responsible for all the ills the system faces today.

5.In the entire judgment there is not a whisper of the concerns of the litigant public, so too the ordinary lawyers. Any sensible person who reads the judgment cannot be blamed if he accuses the Bench that it only thought of itself and none else, nay, of the assistance which it is entitled to from the AOR and the arguing counsel. It gives the impression that the Court exists only for judges, AORs and senior advocates. Nobody else exists in the eyes of the Court.

6.My attempt is not to blame the Hon’ble judges. Having had occasion to practice in Bombay, I have had the privilege and good luck to appear before Justice Oka a number of times. I have had occasion to appear before many High Courts, but I have come across only a few, very few noble judges, Okas, Vasifdars, Thakurs. I have the greatest of regard, admiration, nay, affection for Justice Oka. I mean no criticism. The Bench of Justice Oka had heard the above cited appeal on a number of occasions. I came to know from my friends and media that the court seized of the idea of reforms, had appointed Justice Muralidhar as amicus and invited the views of the SCORA, SCBA, etc.

7.However, am afraid to say that the court did not consider it appropriate to seek opinions from the ordinary lawyers like my humble self. I say so, particularly since the Bench of Justice Gavai by a one-line order dated 7.2.2024 was pleased to dismiss a petition instituted by me and 20 others, lawyers, chartered accountants, engineers, entrepreneurs, litigants and social activists complaining that the designation and collegium system has led to the hijacking of the Indian judiciary by a few elite and powerful families of lawyers, judges and politicians. I filed a chart depicting kinship and progeny in the higher judiciary, supported by my own affidavit. I was told by many that Justice Oka is a fair judge and will certainly be gracious enough to hear the views of people like my humble self who has been campaigning for long for the abolition of the designation system.

8.It is no secret that Shri Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General, is no great friend of mine. But if it all anybody had the right to be heard, it was he, because he represents the government which is accountable to the people. The Attorney General and SG/ASGs alone can represent the public at large. Am afraid to say, Ms. Jaising is a busy body. She is not a “person aggrieved”. She cannot represent the public at large, yet she questioned the locus of the Solicitor General.

9.I address your Lordship because I am a “person aggrieved”. By age and standing at the Bar, I am senior to the judges of the Supreme Court. The statement at paragraph 42 “Those who are designated senior advocates have a different status and high standing in the legal system” is an insult to 99 percent of the lawyers who fall under the category of “other advocates” including my humble self. I believe for a lawyer, nay, anyone self-respect is more important than anything else in life.

10.In spite of many unpleasant and painful statements in the judgment as aforesaid, there is a silver lining. In dismissing the writ petition at the hands of my humble self and 20 others on 7th February 2025 without affording a fair hearing, by a one-line order, the Bench of Justice Gavai has done great injustice. Am afraid I’m putting it bluntly. I believe your Lordship, so too Justice Gavai and Justice Oka do not despise criticism. Nay, I hope would welcome it. The judgment speaks volumes on how ridiculous and useless the system of AOR in prevalence today is. It serves no purpose other than to control the Bar. Divide et impera, divide and rule is the policy which our colonial masters adopted to rule this country. It is antithetical to the concept of democracy. The system of AOR is an instrument of injustice, a wholly avoidable obstruction in accessing justice.

11.When I joined the Bar, the job given to me on the very first day by my senior was to draft an appeal, the easiest of all tasks. 95 percent of all work in the Supreme Court is leave to Appeal (SLP). It does not require any extraordinary skill or experience. The whole AOR system is unnecessary and redundant. AORs are engaged by the lawyer who conducts the case in the High Court. In the vast majority of cases, the AOR is a mere name lender. No power on earth can change it, because the AORs in majority of cases have no connection whatsoever at all with the litigant. There is no need as well. Heavens certainly won’t fall if the AOR system is abolished. On the contrary, an unnecessary impediment will be removed.

12.Justice Oka has elaborated in his judgment, the mischief or dereliction of duty on the part of the AOR and the senior advocate. I consider it a stray incident. So long as the system of AOR is unnecessarily imposed on the litigant public and the lawyers practicing in the High Courts, similar instances of “name lending” will continue. No amount of judgment and guidelines can eliminate it.

13.Article 142 is about “doing complete justice” between parties in any cause before the Supreme Court. It does not confer any power of legislation. The Supreme Court framing guidelines, hearing only a few lawyers on either side practicing in the Supreme Court, is undemocratic. A world exists outside Delhi as well. In doing so, the Court is enacting laws behind the back of the people of this country. It is contrary to the elementary principles of jurisprudence to assume that the Supreme Court has the power to bind, by its judgements, those who were not before it, whom the Court did not hear at all.

14.Am sure your Lordship will show the judicial statesmanship to take this opportunity to undo the grave error which the judgment titled Indira Jaising 1 and Indira Jaising 2 constitute to be. Our challenge on section 16(1) and 23(5) which was dismissed by a non-speaking order, without a fair hearing, is liable to be revisited. Section 16(1) which declares that “there shall be two class of lawyers” which is ex facie violative of Article 14 shall go. *There shall be only one class of lawyers*. That is the mandate of Article 14. That was the dream of Dr. Rajendra Prasad. It is the dream of every lawyer in this country, save a few from elite families who consider special status and privileges their birthright.

15.The Providence has showered your Lordship with infinite wisdom, immense sense of fairness, justice and grace.

16.I therefore refrain from suggesting any course of action. I have unstinted faith in your Lordship’s ability to hold ears to the ground, listen to the grievances of the ordinary lawyers and litigants. I have the greatest of faith in your Lordship’s leadership and judicial statesmanship to bring an end to the division of the Bar. A unified Bar, a single Bar is the need of the hour. We strive to achieve that.

 

With kind regards,

Yours sincerely,

Mathews J Nedumpara.

98205 35428