Judgement 16-Oct-2023
Judgement 16-Oct-2023
Judgement 16-Oct-2023
REPORTABLE
Versus
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioners, practicing Advocates, have filed the present writ petition
under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for a declaration that the
designation of Advocates as Senior Advocates under Sections 16 and 23(5) of
the Advocates Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said Act’) as well as
under Rule 2 of Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, creating a special
class of Advocates with special rights, privileges and status not available to
ordinary Advocates is unconstitutional being violative of the mandate of
equality under Artilce14 and Right to Practice any Profession under Article 19
Signature Not Verified as well as Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is their
Digitally signed by
say that such designation has created a class of Advocates with special rights,
NEETA SAPRA
Date: 2023.10.16
16:35:18 IST
Reason:
2. We may notice that it is contended that this Court in Indira Jaisingh vs.
Supreme Court of India, Through Secretary General & Ors.1, upheld the vires
of the said Act providing for the designation of Advocates as Senior Advocates
and illegally providing guidelines for such designation, amounting to judicial
legislation. We may here add that there have been further modifications and
formulations for designation by a subsequent judgment rendered in Indira
Jaisingh vs. Supreme Court of India, Through Secretary General & Ors. 2 in
pursuance to the liberty reserved in the aforesaid judgment.
3. The say of petitioner no.1 is that we cannot borrow the concept from
Roman Law or England, which was feudal in character, as, in England, the
concept of Queen’s Counsel representing the crown came into existence in the
18th Century. At the time when the Constitution came into existence, there were
admittedly different categories of legal practitioners with varying degrees of the
right to practice – Mukhtiyars, Vakils and Pleaders practiced in the Muffasil
Courts, while in High Courts, Bar at Laws, Advocates and Solicitors practiced.
The said Act was brought into existence to streamline the process of working of
1
(2017) 9 SCC 766
2
(2023) 8 SCC 1
5. We may note that the pleadings of petitioner no.1 are almost reckless in
character. The vast number of first-generation lawyers who attained
prominence and were designated as Senior Advocates are sought to be ignored
– something which has grown over a period of time. We say the pleadings are
reckless because it has sought to be made out as if the legal profession in India
has long been feudalistic and a monopoly of certain higher castes and certain
families. In fact, in the post-liberalisation period, it is alleged that lawyers no
longer come to be known for their knowledge, values and erudition but for the
manifestation of wealth and the proximity to the Bench. These averments are
contemptuous in character, and that too by Petitioner no.1, who already faced
conviction for contempt and debarment from this court to practice in Mathews
Nedumpara, In Re3.
6. The petitioner no.1 does not stop at this but alleges that the Bar has lost
all its independence and vitality. The allegations are not only against the
3
(2019) 19 SCC 454
(1) There shall be two classes of advocates, namely, senior advocates and
other advocates.
(4) An advocate of the Supreme Court who was a senior advocate of that
Court immediately before the appointed day shall, for the purposes of
this section, be deemed to be a senior advocate:
[Provided that where any such senior advocate makes an application
before the 31st December, 1965, to the Bar Council maintaining the roll
in which his name has been entered that he does not desire to continue as
a senior advocate, the Bar Council may grant the application and the roll
shall be altered accordingly.]
…. …. …. …. …. ….
11. There are multifarious prayers seeking to strike down the provisions
mentioned aforesaid of the said Act and to declare the judgment in Indira
Jaising4 case as unconstitutional as also the relevant Supreme Court Rules as
they seek to provide an unjust classification including robes.
12. There is no doubt that petitioner No.1 has had more than one brush with
the law, though he claims to have become an advocate in the pursuit of his own
case. Petitioner No.1 obviously crossed boundaries where the Court was
compelled to take action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and debar
petitioner No.1 from practicing in this Court.
4
supra
5
(2003) 4 SCC 104
6
(2012) 1 SCC 226
7
supra
20. If one may say the indulgence to the junior members of the Bar, in a
sense, is more than to the senior members because it is also part of the duty of
the Bench to help with the evolution of the Bar. The underlying principle for
ages has been that the credit should go to the junior counsel without the
discredit going to him, and through ages, many lawyers have learnt in this
process, including the persons who now form the Bench.
21. We have, thus, not the slightest hesitation in coming to the conclusion
that this writ petition is a misadventure largely of petitioner No.1 in
continuation of some of his past misadventures. It appears that the judgments
and orders passed earlier do not seem to have had any salutary or counselling
effect on petitioner No.1 for any self-introspection, but he seeks to carry on a
8
(1981) 4 SCC 675
...……………………………J.
[Sanjay Kishan Kaul]
...……………………………J.
[C.T. Ravikumar]
...……………………………J.
[Sudhanshu Dhulia]
New Delhi.
October 16, 2023.