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 justification, making allegations against all and sundry – The classification of advocates as senior advocates and other advocates u/s.16 is a classification made by the legislature – It has a broad discretion to make such classifications, and while there must be a reason for classification, the reason need not be a good one – The Court can only review the classification if it is palpably discriminatory and arbitrary – The classification of advocates u/s.16 is a tangible difference 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, and the two judgments passed in Indira Jaising cases have endeavoured to make the process more transparent – The challenge that the classification is violative of Article 14 is untenable – Constitutional validity of a specific 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 classification of advocates and the mechanism to grant seniority to advocates is not based on any arbitrary, artificial or evasive grounds – Such a classification 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 classification 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. OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.