{"id":206676,"date":"2025-01-03T01:22:10","date_gmt":"2025-01-03T01:22:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/2025\/01\/03\/sc-irked-over-scurrilous-remarks-against-judges-in-plea-against-senior-designations-to-lawyers\/"},"modified":"2025-01-03T01:22:10","modified_gmt":"2025-01-03T01:22:10","slug":"sc-irked-over-scurrilous-remarks-against-judges-in-plea-against-senior-designations-to-lawyers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/2025\/01\/03\/sc-irked-over-scurrilous-remarks-against-judges-in-plea-against-senior-designations-to-lawyers\/","title":{"rendered":"SC irked over ‘scurrilous’ remarks against judges in plea against senior designations to lawyers"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"SC<\/div>\n
The Supreme Court<\/a> on Thursday took exception to the “scurrilous and unfounded allegations” made against judges in a plea against the conferment of senior designations to lawyers. “How many judges can you name whose offsprings have been designated as senior counsel?” a bench of Justices B R Gavai and K V Viswanathan asked advocate Mathews J Nedumpara, who appeared for the petitioners. Referring to the averments in the plea, the bench observed it had insinuations against the judges. <\/p>\n

“We find that various scurrilous, unfounded allegations have been made against the institution,” it said.<\/p>\n

The bench referred to the averments made in the plea which read, “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 40 remaining to be a plebeian lawyer.” <\/p>\n

The plea filed by Nedumpara and several others, including many practising advocates, raised a grievance against the senior designations conferred to lawyers. <\/p>\n

During the hearing, Nedumpara, who offered to place certain data before the court, argued the bar was fearful of judges. <\/p>\n

“Mr Nedumpara, this is a court of law. Not a boat club or Azad Maidan in Bombay (Mumbai) to make speeches. So, when you address a court of law, make legal arguments<\/a>. Not the arguments only for the purpose of gallery,” said Justice Gavai. <\/p>\n

The court said it was willing to grant him the liberty to amend the petition.
“If you do not amend the petition, we may take such steps as we find necessary,” it said. <\/p>\n

The bench said it would have proceeded with the matter, but Nedumpara wanted to reflect on the plea’s averments and consult with other petitioners on the future course of action. <\/p>\n

“Are you going to delete these averments or not?” the bench said, “be very clear whether you are going to carry on with these scurrilous averments or not.” <\/p>\n

The petitioners were granted four weeks’ time. <\/p>\n

The plea alleged the classification of lawyers into two categories and conferring a minority with “favours and privileges” was against the concept of equality and the ethos of the Constitution. <\/p>\n

“The instant petition challenges Sections 16 and 23(5) of the Advocates Act<\/a> which creates two classes of lawyers, senior advocates and other advocates which in actual practice has resulted in an unthinkable catastrophe and inequities which Parliament<\/a> certainly would not have contemplated or foreseen,” it said. <\/p>\n

The plea therefore sought quashing of the Delhi High Court<\/a>‘s recent conferment of senior designations to about 70 lawyers.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n


\n
Source link <\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Supreme Court on Thursday took exception to the “scurrilous and unfounded allegations” made against judges in a plea against the conferment of senior designations to lawyers. “How many judges can you name whose offsprings have been designated as senior counsel?” a bench of Justices B R Gavai and K V Viswanathan asked advocate Mathews […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":206677,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"tdm_status":"","tdm_grid_status":"","fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/img.etimg.com\/photo\/msid-116886145,imgsize-97552.cms","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[602],"tags":[36518,162957,2446,162960,152643,8816,162958,10853,162956,3321,5851,495,162959,10650,162954,1617,162955],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/206676"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=206676"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/206676\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":206678,"href":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/206676\/revisions\/206678"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/206677"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=206676"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=206676"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=206676"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}