The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the practice of designating a class of lawyers as senior advocates in the apex court and high courts, stating that the practice cannot be held to be “untenable” or “creating an artificial class of distinction”.
A bench of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul held that the practice of designating seniors in the constitutional courts is based on intelligible differentia and standardised matrix of merit.
Affirming the relevant provisions of the 1961 Advocates Act, the bench, which also included justices CT Ravikumar and Sudhanshu Dhulia, said that the process of designating senior advocates is “not based on artificial or arbitrary distinction” and is aligned with the age-old tradition of lawyers assisting the court in the process of evolution of law and jurisprudence.
Also Read: Supreme Court seeks fresh medical report on woman’s plea for abortion
While dismissing the petition filed by Mumbai-based lawyer Mathews J Nedumpara along with seven other advocates, the bench called the petition a “misadventure” and a part of an ongoing “vilification campaign” by the petitioners.
The petition had argued that senior designation has created a class of advocates with special rights and that the designation more often than not benefits only the kith and kin of judges, senior advocates, politicians and ministers.
{{/usCountry}}The petition had argued that senior designation has created a class of advocates with special rights and that the designation more often than not benefits only the kith and kin of judges, senior advocates, politicians and ministers.
{{/usCountry}}The petitioners challenged the validity of Sections 16 and 23 (5) of the Advocates Act, contending that these “creates two classes of lawyers, senior advocates and other advocates, which in actual practice has resulted in unthinkable catastrophe and inequities which the Parliament certainly would not have contemplated or foreseen”.
Section 16 of the Act relates to senior and other advocates and Section 23 (5) prescribes that senior advocates shall have pre-audience over other lawyers and their right of pre-audience inter se shall be determined by their respective seniority.
The petition claimed that the practice of designation is unconstitutional for violating the mandate of equality under Article 14 and the right to practice any profession under Article 19, as well as the right to life under Article 21.
It assailed the apex court’s judgement in 2017 Indira Jaising’s case where guidelines were laid down for conferring the senior advocates designation.
The apex court had then said that a five-member permanent committee, headed by Chief Justice of India, should be set up for short-listing candidates for conferring senior designation. Similar guidelines were issued for 24 high courts across the country.
Prior to the 2017 judgment, a decision on the designation of lawyers as senior advocates was taken by adopting a secret voting among the judges and by the rule of majority.
By another judgment in May this year, the apex court had brought in certain modifications in the process while maintaining that the process of designating ‘senior advocate’, which has always been held as an “honour conferred”, should be carried out by the Supreme Court and high courts at least once a year.