Karnataka Senior Designation controversy: Supreme Court asks High Court to hear the challenge on merits

The Supreme Court today held that the petitions filed by two lawyers, TN Raghupathy and M Veerabhadraiah (Petitioners), challenging the Senior designations made by the Karnataka High Court earlier this year, should be heard by the Karnataka High Court..The Court also set aside the High Court order of August 4 in which it had observed that the Petitioners do not have the locus standi to agitate the matter..The judgment was delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justices Anil R Dave and Kurian Joseph..While Raghupathy appeared in person, Veerabhadraiah was represented by advocate MR Rajagopal..Senior Advocate KK Venugopal appeared for the Karnataka High Court while Advocate Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad represented the Bar Council of India. Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal, Gopal Subramanium and advocate Anand Sanjay M Nuli appeared for other Respondents including Senior lawyers who were also impleaded in the petition..The Karnataka High Court had designated 15 lawyers as Senior Advocates this year. Raghupathy had challenged the Senior designations on the ground that the High Court norms for designation is against the language and spirit of Section 16 (2) of the Advocates Act, 1961. Veerabhadraiah had, however, contended that the designations were made before the newly drafted rules in this regard were put in place..When the matter was heard by a Bench of the High Court presided by the Chief Justice, both the Petitioners had requested the High Court to transfer the matter to another Bench comprising judges who had not participated in the proceedings relating to the designation of Senior lawyers. The said request was rejected by the High Court which also observed in its order that the Petitioners did not have the locus standi to agitate the matter..Both the lawyers had then moved the Supreme Court – Raghupathy vide a Special Leave Petition (SLP) and Veerabhadraiah vide a Transfer Petition..In the SLP before the Supreme Court, Raghupathy had assailed the said High Court order and had sought for staying the notifications of the High Court by which the Senior designations were made. Veerabhadraiah, in his Transfer Petition, had sought for withdrawing the case from the Karnataka High Court and transferring it to any other neighboring State’s High Court for a free and fair hearing..During the brief hearing on December 8, the Bench had queried why the matter should not be heard by the High Court in its judicial capacity as it was common practice for High Courts to hear matters concerning its administrative side. Lawyers appearing for the Respondents had also agreed to it while stating that the locus of the petitioners would not be challenged in the High Court..The Court had, then, reserved its order.