CJI Surya Kant Issues Stern Warning to Advocate Mathews Nedumpara Over Court Conduct

Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant issued a strong reprimand to advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara on February 23, 2026, during the mentioning of a plea related to the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC). The exchange took place before a bench that included Justice Joymalya Bagchi.

The warning followed remarks made by the advocate regarding the prioritization of cases in the Supreme Court. The incident marks another chapter in the long-standing debate over the Collegium system and the professional conduct expected within the highest court of the land.

Verified Facts / Timeline:

• Feb 23, 2026: Advocate Nedumpara mentions NJAC plea before CJI Surya Kant.
• Advocate's Claim: Alleges the Registry ignores NJAC pleas while prioritizing corporate matters.
• CJI's Response: Issues warning against misbehavior and inappropriate comparisons.
• 2024: SC Registry had previously refused to register Nedumpara's writ petition on similar grounds.

During the proceedings, Advocate Nedumpara addressed the bench, stating, "Your Lordship, you have now constituted a Constitution Bench for Adani and Ambani matters; but the Registry still has not looked at the NJAC application. This is a matter of great public interest."

CJI Surya Kant expressed deep dissatisfaction with the tone and content of the mention. He cautioned the advocate to be mindful of his statements, noting that he had observed the advocate's conduct in both Chandigarh and Delhi previously.

The CJI warned: "Mr. Nedumpara, I warn you to be careful about what you say in my court. You have seen me in Chandigarh, and now in Delhi. I am warning you. Just because you misbehaved before some benches in the past does not mean you can behave the same way in my court."

Official Statement - SC Registry:

Registrar (J-A) Puneet Sehgal stated in a detailed order: "The prayers sought in the petition were fully considered in the October 16, 2015 judgment. This petition re-litigates settled issues. It appears to go beyond settled legal doctrines or is filed with an ulterior motive."

The Registry previously declined the petition under Order XV Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. It noted that the advocate was essentially seeking a review of the 2015 five-judge Constitution Bench judgment, despite a review petition on the matter having already been disposed of in 2018.

Advocate Nedumpara has consistently argued that the Collegium system denies equal opportunity to thousands of lawyers for judicial appointments. He alleges that the system lacks fixed criteria and transparency regarding candidates being considered for the Supreme Court.

Legal Clarification - Res Judicata:

The principle of 'Res Judicata' prevents the same parties from litigating a matter that has already been adjudicated by a competent court. The Registry maintains that re-opening the NJAC debate via original writ jurisdiction violates this doctrine and wastes judicial time.

The NJAC Act and the 99th Constitutional Amendment were passed by Parliament in 2014 to bring transparency and executive participation into judicial appointments. However, the Supreme Court struck them down in 2015, citing the "independence of the judiciary" as a basic structure of the Constitution.

The current Collegium system, which grew out of the Second and Third Judges cases, remains the sole mechanism for appointments. Critics like Nedumpara argue this system is ineffective in maintaining administrative records or providing public information about candidates.

Public Relevance:

The conflict involves the fundamental balance of power between the Judiciary and the Executive. While the legal community remains divided on the Collegium system, the court insists that challenges must follow established legal procedures without disrupting court decorum.

What is Officially Confirmed

It is officially confirmed that CJI Surya Kant issued a verbal warning to Advocate Mathews Nedumpara regarding his conduct in court on February 23, 2026. It is also confirmed that the SC Registry has a standing refusal to register his specific petition on NJAC, citing procedural non-compliance and the principle of finality of judgments.

Editorial Disclosure: This report is based on official Supreme Court proceedings and documented orders from the SC Registry. The information is current as of the latest official updates in February 2026.

Expert Legal Clarification

Under the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, the Registrar holds the power to "lodge" (refuse to register) petitions that do not disclose a reasonable cause of action or are frivolous. Legal experts point out that comparing the listing of commercial cases to constitutional challenges during a 'mentioning' hour is often viewed by the bench as an attempt to sensationalize legal hurdles.

FAQs

1. Why was Advocate Nedumpara warned by the CJI? He was warned for comparing the court's case-listing priorities to corporate matters (Adani/Ambani) and for his general conduct during the mentioning of the NJAC plea.

2. What is the NJAC? The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) was a proposed body to replace the Collegium system for appointing judges, which was struck down by the SC in 2015.

3. Can a lawyer re-file a petition that has been rejected by the Registry? A lawyer can appeal the Registrar's decision to a Judge in Chambers, but they cannot keep re-filing the same petition to circumvent 'Res Judicata'.

References / Sources:
• Supreme Court of India - Official Proceedings (Feb 23, 2026)
• SC Registry Order - Registrar (J-A) Puneet Sehgal (Ref: Writ Petition 2024)
• Constitution of India - 99th Amendment Records.