Advocate TN Raghupathy and M Veerabhadraiah shall be moving the Supreme Court against the Karnataka High Court’s decision in the senior designation case. .As reported earlier, the Karnataka High Court had recently dismissed petitions challenging the designations of 15 lawyers as Senior Advocates of the High Court. It is a verdict that is likely to be challenged before the Supreme Court..Advocate TN Raghupathy confirmed that he, along with the other petitioner M Veerabhadraiah, shall be moving the apex court in appeal..The lawyer, who appeared in-person, did not appear to be pleased with the 123-page verdict delivered by Acting Chief Justice SK Mukherjee and BV Nagarathna J..“It is a mockery of the institution. Advocates should not be allowed to apply to be Senior Advocates. It is an honour that should be bestowed upon them.”.During the course of the hearings, Raghupathy had submitted that the Norms framed by the Court for designation were against the spirit of Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act..These were norms formulated in June 2014 by a Committee comprising three High Court judges, after considering the opinion of other Senior Advocates, and office bearers of the Karnataka State Bar Council and the Advocates Association of the High Court..Under the Norms, an advocate seeking to be designated as a Senior Advocate may be sponsored by:.1) The Chief Justice or other Judges of the High Court.2) By any two Senior Advocates.3) By the advocate herself making an application for being designated as a Senior Advocate.Subsequently, the High Court had designated some lawyers as Senior Advocates through two separate notifications. In the first instance on June 30, four advocates, namely Sajan Poovayya, Aditya Sondhi, Prabhuling Navadgi and Shashikiran Shetty were designated as Seniors. However, these designations were made before the Full Court approved the Norms formulated by the aforementioned Committee. Then, on July 14 another 11 advocates were designated. The petitioners had sought directions from the Court to annul these notifications..The Court, however, felt that it was well within its rights to formulate and follow Norms for designation of Senior Advocates. Relying on a number of decisions and backed by similar norms followed by other high courts, the Bench held,.“…exercise of power under a provision of a statute is not dependent upon the framing of rules unless the legislative intent is to the contrary…Section 16 does not prescribe any such Parliamentary intention…”.Moreover it was held,.“Merely because without completing the task of framing Norms…certain advocates were designated as senior counsel, it cannot be termed as an arbitrary or an illegal act or one lacking in transparency…”.Another grievance Raghupathy brought to the fore was that of the secret ballot system of voting by the Full Court. He said,.“There should be deliberations by the Full Court; they should express their opinion on each and every applicant, and give reason as to why they felt a candidate was suitable or unsuitable. Take the case of a trial court lawyer like Hashmath Pasha, whom the Court knew nothing about. He thoroughly deserved to be designated.”.The Court, in its judgment, held a contrary view,.“It is prudent to have a secret ballot rather than a voice vote, so as to maintain a cordial atmosphere during the Full Court meeting.”.On the topic of judicial review of administrative decisions of the Court, it was held,.“The question as to whether an opinion formed by an authority is right or wrong cannot be considered by the Court…the court would also not interfere with the subjective satisfaction of an authority…unless there is irrelevant consideration which has crept into the decision making process…Thus it is only the decision making process which can be assailed but not the merits of an administrative decision.”.Further, it refused to issue directions to effect the formulation of fresh norms, as prayed for by the petitioners..“No specific direction can be issued for framing of fresh Norms, Rules and Regulations under Section 16(2) of the Act. That is a matter left to the administrative decision of the Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court.”.It is also interesting to note that the Advocates Association, in their statement of objections, had alleged that the advocates had indulged in horse-trading to garner votes. On a later hearing, the Association withdrew their objections, and the Court refused to delve into that matter..Perhaps sensing that this entire controversy might create a rift in the Bar, the Court concluded,.“We also hope and trust that by this decision, the rancor, if any, in a Section of the Bar, is assuaged as a strong, unified Bar is essential for an independent judiciary.”.Now, it remains to be seen what the Supreme Court will do if and when the petitioners decide to appeal. It will not be the first time that this particular matter has been brought to the apex court’s attention..Earlier this year, when the matter came before the apex court, the court had directed the Karnataka High Court to hear the petition on merits..It is also pertinent to note that a similar petition filed by Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, challenging the very institution of Senior Advocate is pending in the Supreme Court..Read the Karnataka HC’s judgement:
Advocate TN Raghupathy and M Veerabhadraiah shall be moving the Supreme Court against the Karnataka High Court’s decision in the senior designation case. .As reported earlier, the Karnataka High Court had recently dismissed petitions challenging the designations of 15 lawyers as Senior Advocates of the High Court. It is a verdict that is likely to be challenged before the Supreme Court..Advocate TN Raghupathy confirmed that he, along with the other petitioner M Veerabhadraiah, shall be moving the apex court in appeal..The lawyer, who appeared in-person, did not appear to be pleased with the 123-page verdict delivered by Acting Chief Justice SK Mukherjee and BV Nagarathna J..“It is a mockery of the institution. Advocates should not be allowed to apply to be Senior Advocates. It is an honour that should be bestowed upon them.”.During the course of the hearings, Raghupathy had submitted that the Norms framed by the Court for designation were against the spirit of Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act..These were norms formulated in June 2014 by a Committee comprising three High Court judges, after considering the opinion of other Senior Advocates, and office bearers of the Karnataka State Bar Council and the Advocates Association of the High Court..Under the Norms, an advocate seeking to be designated as a Senior Advocate may be sponsored by:.1) The Chief Justice or other Judges of the High Court.2) By any two Senior Advocates.3) By the advocate herself making an application for being designated as a Senior Advocate.Subsequently, the High Court had designated some lawyers as Senior Advocates through two separate notifications. In the first instance on June 30, four advocates, namely Sajan Poovayya, Aditya Sondhi, Prabhuling Navadgi and Shashikiran Shetty were designated as Seniors. However, these designations were made before the Full Court approved the Norms formulated by the aforementioned Committee. Then, on July 14 another 11 advocates were designated. The petitioners had sought directions from the Court to annul these notifications..The Court, however, felt that it was well within its rights to formulate and follow Norms for designation of Senior Advocates. Relying on a number of decisions and backed by similar norms followed by other high courts, the Bench held,.“…exercise of power under a provision of a statute is not dependent upon the framing of rules unless the legislative intent is to the contrary…Section 16 does not prescribe any such Parliamentary intention…”.Moreover it was held,.“Merely because without completing the task of framing Norms…certain advocates were designated as senior counsel, it cannot be termed as an arbitrary or an illegal act or one lacking in transparency…”.Another grievance Raghupathy brought to the fore was that of the secret ballot system of voting by the Full Court. He said,.“There should be deliberations by the Full Court; they should express their opinion on each and every applicant, and give reason as to why they felt a candidate was suitable or unsuitable. Take the case of a trial court lawyer like Hashmath Pasha, whom the Court knew nothing about. He thoroughly deserved to be designated.”.The Court, in its judgment, held a contrary view,.“It is prudent to have a secret ballot rather than a voice vote, so as to maintain a cordial atmosphere during the Full Court meeting.”.On the topic of judicial review of administrative decisions of the Court, it was held,.“The question as to whether an opinion formed by an authority is right or wrong cannot be considered by the Court…the court would also not interfere with the subjective satisfaction of an authority…unless there is irrelevant consideration which has crept into the decision making process…Thus it is only the decision making process which can be assailed but not the merits of an administrative decision.”.Further, it refused to issue directions to effect the formulation of fresh norms, as prayed for by the petitioners..“No specific direction can be issued for framing of fresh Norms, Rules and Regulations under Section 16(2) of the Act. That is a matter left to the administrative decision of the Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court.”.It is also interesting to note that the Advocates Association, in their statement of objections, had alleged that the advocates had indulged in horse-trading to garner votes. On a later hearing, the Association withdrew their objections, and the Court refused to delve into that matter..Perhaps sensing that this entire controversy might create a rift in the Bar, the Court concluded,.“We also hope and trust that by this decision, the rancor, if any, in a Section of the Bar, is assuaged as a strong, unified Bar is essential for an independent judiciary.”.Now, it remains to be seen what the Supreme Court will do if and when the petitioners decide to appeal. It will not be the first time that this particular matter has been brought to the apex court’s attention..Earlier this year, when the matter came before the apex court, the court had directed the Karnataka High Court to hear the petition on merits..It is also pertinent to note that a similar petition filed by Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, challenging the very institution of Senior Advocate is pending in the Supreme Court..Read the Karnataka HC’s judgement:
