We want LI to be one of the friendliest places on the internet, where lawyers and law students help each other with their career related queries and occasionally discuss other stuff that might affect their lives too. In other words:
1. Be kind, respectful and helpful to each other.
2. Be bona fide, truthful, genuine and curious.
3. Assume the best intention of others.
Therefore, in using the site, you must agree to do your best to uphold these community guidelines.
Note that what you find here is written and moderated by anonymous people on the internet.
Therefore everything you read here is very likely unverified, rumour, speculation and/or downright false.
In continuing to read anything here, you must therefore agree not to take anything you read here as factual and that you will exercise due caution, diligence and common sense before acting on any information you may come across here.
You also agree to report any inaccurate or malicious comments with the buttons. Moderators take action within 24 hours, as required and appropriate under law.
Our full terms and conditions apply too.
Do you solemnly agree to all of the above?
The Bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan was hearing a plea moved by advocate Mathews J Nedumpara and others for quashing of the recent designation of 70 lawyers as Senior Advocates by Delhi High Court.
"How many judges can you name whose offspring have been made seniors?" the Court asked as it questioned the allegations made in the petition.
Nedumpara in response said that he has submitted a chart to back his claim.
However, the Court was unconvinced with the submission and warned of action in case of failure to remove the allegations from the petition.
"We will grant you liberty to amend the plea and if it is not amended then we will take steps accordingly," the Court said.
When Nedumpara submitted that bar was afraid of judges, the Court took exception to the line of arguments.
"This is a court of law and not azaad maidan of Bombay to make speeches. Make legal arguments and not for gallery," Justice Gavai remarked.
Ultimately, the Court granted the counsel time to reflect over the pleadings and consider whether they need to be removed.
"A lawyer who is signatory to such a petition is also guilty of contempt," it warned.
https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/supreme-court-to-hear-asaduddin-owaisi-plea-implement-places-of-worship-act