This Monday, the High Court of Delhi issued notice in a petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 16 of the Advocates Act. Under this provision, the Advocates Act recognises two classes of lawyers – advocates, and senior advocates..The petitioners, the National Lawyers’ Campaign for Judicial Transparency and Reforms and advocate AC Philip, have also challenged the validity of Section 23(5) of the Advocates Act, under which senior advocates enjoy a right of “pre-audience” over other advocates..Claiming grave discrimination faced by non-designated advocates, the petitioners were heard by S. Ravindra Bhat and Deepa Sharma JJ in the Delhi High Court. It was argued that the appointment of senior advocates led to gross “discrimination” of first generation lawyers, and deprives the “penniless” of a “co-equal audience”..To which Bhat J. observed,.“The institution works according to a list. There are certain times when someone is entertained early due to an emergency, but that is not a rule.”.He further stated,.“If the Court does not have the power to regulate it’s own proceedings, then it will be the end of the institution.”.The bench asked the petitioners to make the Registry of the Supreme Court, and the Delhi High Court parties to the proceedings. The matter will now come up on September 19 this year..This is not the only petition related to senior designations in the country. In the Supreme Court, senior counsel Indira Jaising has challenged the manner in which designations have been made in the apex court.
This Monday, the High Court of Delhi issued notice in a petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 16 of the Advocates Act. Under this provision, the Advocates Act recognises two classes of lawyers – advocates, and senior advocates..The petitioners, the National Lawyers’ Campaign for Judicial Transparency and Reforms and advocate AC Philip, have also challenged the validity of Section 23(5) of the Advocates Act, under which senior advocates enjoy a right of “pre-audience” over other advocates..Claiming grave discrimination faced by non-designated advocates, the petitioners were heard by S. Ravindra Bhat and Deepa Sharma JJ in the Delhi High Court. It was argued that the appointment of senior advocates led to gross “discrimination” of first generation lawyers, and deprives the “penniless” of a “co-equal audience”..To which Bhat J. observed,.“The institution works according to a list. There are certain times when someone is entertained early due to an emergency, but that is not a rule.”.He further stated,.“If the Court does not have the power to regulate it’s own proceedings, then it will be the end of the institution.”.The bench asked the petitioners to make the Registry of the Supreme Court, and the Delhi High Court parties to the proceedings. The matter will now come up on September 19 this year..This is not the only petition related to senior designations in the country. In the Supreme Court, senior counsel Indira Jaising has challenged the manner in which designations have been made in the apex court.