Supreme Court Judge Justice Vikram Nath on Monday reiterated his long-standing practice of not permitting Senior Advocates to make oral mentions or appear before his Bench during partial court working days, stating that the measure is intended to provide greater opportunities to young lawyers and Advocates-on-Record (AoRs).

The issue arose when a Senior Advocate attempted to mention a matter before the Bench. Justice Nath declined the request, observing, “Senior Advocates are not allowed to mention in my court during vacations.”

The Judge also declined a mention sought by Advocate Mathews Nedumpara. Although Nedumpara pointed out that he was not a designated Senior Advocate, Justice Nath remarked, “In my eyes, Mr. Nedumpara is a senior.”

Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave requested the Court to implement the restriction from the following day, arguing that many senior lawyers were unaware of the practice. However, Justice Nath stated that he had consistently followed the same approach during summer vacations over the past several years.

Dave further submitted that senior advocates should be permitted to appear in matters where they had already been engaged and notices had been issued during the preceding week. “These are matters in which notice was issued last week. We were engaged to appear,” he said.

Justice Nath, however, maintained that the objective of the practice was to create opportunities for younger members of the Bar. When informed that other vacation benches were allowing senior advocates to appear, the Judge remained firm.

“Let young lawyers come. No senior advocate is permitted to appear in my court during partial working days,” Justice Nath stated.

When Dave contended that lawyers had not been informed of the practice, Justice Nath responded that it was a well-known policy of his Bench. “Everybody knows. For the past 4 years I am following this. Mr. Courtmaster, please have the senior advocates leave the court,” he said.

The Bench also did not permit Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde to appear in a matter and instead asked the instructing counsel to make submissions before the Court.