The exorbitant fee charged by the Senior Advocates has always raised eyebrows. The Bombay High Court while hearing a petition alleging the exorbitant fees charged by the Senior Advocates stated that it all depended on ones value, reports TOI.

Recently, Senior lawyer M.P. Vashi has filed a petition before Mumbai High Court challenging the validity of Sections 16 (1), 16(2) and 17 (1) of the Advocates Act 1961 and the rules framed by Bar Council of India and High Court as unconstitutional, discriminatory and therefore, should be scrapped.

Section 16(1) provides that there shall be two classes of advocates - senior advocates and other advocates. Section 16 (2) provides that an advocate with his consent can be designated as senior if the Supreme Court or the HC is of the opinion that by virtue of his ability, standing at the bar or special knowledge and experience in law he deserves such distinction.

The Petitioner alleges that the distinction between senior advocates and other advocates is discriminatory. The Petitioner has stated that when this Act was enacted, the purpose was that certain advocates by virtue of ability and knowledge of law, standing at the bar should be so recognised that they can help the courts in arriving at the correct decision and even the judges could rely on their ability and knowledge of law. However, with time things have changed and the purpose of making this provision has been defeated.

The Petitioner further alleges that instead of utilising their knowledge for the common man the designated counsels are now appearing for people who have committed economic offences, anti-social elements and also who have the capacity to pay their exorbitant fee.

The Petitioner submits that on many occasions these designated senior counsels, by virtue of their weight, carry the court with them while the opponent who is represented by a non-designated counsel is unable to do justice to the poor client even if he/she has a good case. This is because these designated counsels have some face value than ‘other advocates’.

The Petitioner has further submitted that even in the Supreme Court there is a monopoly of a few designated counsels who charge fees as per their sweet will without any control. The Petitioner alleges that there is much disparity in the fees charged by designated counsels and other advocates.

The Petitioner has urged before the Court that these provisions should be scrapped and BCI should be ordered to incorporate a rule that no senior advocate will charge a fee of more than Rs. 30,000 per day per appearance.

According to TOI, BCI Advocate Nitin Jamdar said the petition reads like ‘a pamphlet rather than a petition' and is a ‘tirade’ against senior advocates.

The judge said the Act says advocates must charge fees. “Can you ask a doctor not to charge?” asked Justice Majmudar. 

The Bench has adjourned the matter to September after BCI and the High Court sought time to file their replies.

Speaking to Bar & Bench Senior Lawyer Vashi said, “We say that justice should be cheaper and affordable but if Senior Counsels charge Rs. 2-3 lakh per appearance how can common people afford this. I have suggested not more than Rs. 30,000 per day should be charged which is also not less in our country.

He further added, “There are two categories of advocates; senior advocates and other advocates and this categorization should be abolished”. 

Another PIL was filed by General Secretary of All Orissa Lawyers Association claiming that a “huge financial loss to the public exchequer” has been committed by the State Government for engaging Senior Advocate Mukul Rohtagi at Rs. 25 lakh per day when the Advocate General of the State and other empanelled lawyers could have easily handled this case.

Last year, Bar & Bench had in detail covered the list of Senior Counsels and famous litigating lawyers and their average fee per appearance and per day as reported by India Today.

Copy of the Petition