MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2023] 13 S.C.R. 1181 · Decided: 16-10-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

CASE DETAILS
MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA & ORS.
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Writ Petition (C) No. 320 of 2023)
OCTOBER 16, 2023
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, C.T. RAVIKUMAR AND 
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Designation of Advocates as Senior 
Advocates u/ss.16 and 23(5), Advocates Act, 1961 as well as u/Or. IV, 
r.2, Supreme Court Rules, 2013, if unconstitutional being violative of the 
mandate of equality u/Artilce 14 and Right to Practice any Profession u/
Article 19 as well as Right to Life u/Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 
as claimed.
Advocates Act, 1961 – ss.16, 23(5) – Challenge to – Plea of the 
petitioners inter alia that designation of senior Advocates has created 
a class of Advocates with special rights, privileges and status and the 
same has been seen as a result only for kith and kin of Judges, Senior 
Advocates, politicians, Ministers, etc., resulting in the legal industry 
being monopolised by a small group of designated Advocates:
Held: Pleadings are reckless, completely devoid of merit and 
justiﬁ cation, making allegations against all and sundry – The classiﬁ cation 
of advocates as senior advocates and other advocates u/s.16 is a 
classiﬁ cation made by the legislature – It has a broad discretion to make 
such classiﬁ cations, and while there must be a reason for classiﬁ cation, the 
reason need not be a good one – The Court can only review the classiﬁ cation 
if it is palpably discriminatory and arbitrary – The classiﬁ cation of advocates 
u/s.16 is a tangible diﬀ erence established by the practice advocates have 
over decades, and the Court has devised a discernible and transparent 
mechanism to adjudicate the seniority of advocates in the profession – 
Designation as a Senior Advocate is a recognition of merit by the Court, 
[2023] 13 S.C.R. 1181 : 2023 INSC 918
1181
1182 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 13 S.C.R.
and the two judgments passed in Indira Jaising cases have endeavoured to 
make the process more transparent – The challenge that the classiﬁ cation 
is violative of Article 14 is untenable – Constitutional validity of a speciﬁ c 
provision cannot be challenged in abstract, but when the provisions violate 
any fundamental rights or contravenes any provision of the Constitution, 
or the legislature lacks law-making competence – The classiﬁ cation of 
advocates and the mechanism to grant seniority to advocates is not based on 
any arbitrary, artiﬁ cial or evasive grounds – Such a classiﬁ cation is a creation 
of the legislature, and there is a general presumption of constitutionality, and 
the burden is on the petitioners to show that there is a clear transgression of 
the constitutional principles, which they have miserably failed to discharge 
– This rule is based on the assumption, judicially recognized and accepted, 
that the legislature understands and correctly appreciates the needs of the 
people – Present writ petition is a misadventure largely of petitioner No.1 
in continuation of some of his past misadventures, dismissed– Constitution 
of India – Articles 14, 19, 21, 32. [Paras 5, 13-15, 17, 18 and 21]
Constitution of India – Article 14 – Designation of Advocates as 
Senior Advocates – Violation of Article 14 alleged:
Held: Not violated – Article 14 permits the reasonable classiﬁ cation 
of people by the legislature – The seniority of advocates is premised on 
a standardised metric of merit aimed at forwarding the standards of the 
profession – Advocates Act, 1961 – ss.16, 23(5) – Supreme Court Rules, 
2013 – Or. IV, r.2. [Para 18]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Indira Jaisingh v. Supreme Court of India, Through Secretary General 
& Ors. (2017) 9 SCC 766 : [2017] 10 SCR 478; Indira Jaisingh v. Supreme 
Court of India, Through Secretary General & Ors. (2023) 8 SCC 1; Public 
Services Tribunal Bar Association v. State of U.P (2003) 4 SCC 104 : [2003] 
1 SCR 666; Union of India v. Nitdip Textile Processors (P) Ltd. (2012) 1 
SCC 226 : [2011] 13 SCR 26; R.K. Garg v. Union of India (1981) 4 SCC 
675 : [1982] 1 SCR 947 – relied on.
Mathews Nedumpara, In Re (2019) 19 SCC 454 – referred to.
1183
MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA & ORS. v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 320 
of 2023.
Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India.
Appearances:
Mathews J. Nedumpara, Petitioner-in-person
Ms. Maria Nedumpara, Adv. for the Petitioners.
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COUR
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.