Can a high court designate a lawyer from another high court as Senior Advocate?.For deciding this question, the Supreme Court has sought the assistance of Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi. Further, the Bench of Justices Rohinton Fali Nariman and M Shantanagoudar also directed that the details of the case be posted on the Supreme Court website so that Advocates General of different states who wish to assist the Court, can do so..These important directions came about in a petition filed by the Shillong Bar Association, challenging the Rules framed by the Meghalaya High Court allowing the designation of any lawyer as Senior Advocate even if the concerned lawyer is not practising in Meghalaya High Court..The case has a very interesting history..It began when the Meghalaya High Court designated a Delhi-based advocate in 2014. The designation was allegedly made in violation of the Rules framed by the High Court itself..Things did not end there, as two more Delhi-based lawyers were made seniors a year later. This time, however, the High Court amended the criteria prescribed by the Rules, allegedly to facilitate the designations..While the Rules initially mandated a 5-year practice in the Meghalaya High Court for an advocate to be eligible for designation, this was later amended to 10-year practice in any court in India. Another major change to the rule was that any 3 lawyers could recommend an applicant’s name for the gown, as opposed to the earlier condition, which required that the recommending lawyer should also be from Meghalaya High Court..Senior Counsel Meenakshi Arora had submitted when the matter was heard last year,.“Any Senior counsel anywhere in the country can recommend any advocate anywhere in the country. One need not practise in Meghalaya High Court. One may be practising on Chennai and I, who is in Delhi can recommend him for a [senior] gown in Meghalaya.”.The petitioner has sought quashing of the three designations, as well as the Rules framed by the High Court. The Supreme Court had issued notice in the case in October last year, and stayed the amendment..When the matter came up for hearing today, the Bench remarked that it will settle the issue once and for all..Senior Advocate Harish Salve pointed out that a challenge to the Senior designations process by Indira Jaising is already pending before the Supreme Court..The Court, however, remarked that it will decide the case notwithstanding the fact that the other case is pending..It then proceeded to direct the Attorney General to assist the Court. The matter has now been posted for hearing in the first week of August..Read the order below.
Can a high court designate a lawyer from another high court as Senior Advocate?.For deciding this question, the Supreme Court has sought the assistance of Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi. Further, the Bench of Justices Rohinton Fali Nariman and M Shantanagoudar also directed that the details of the case be posted on the Supreme Court website so that Advocates General of different states who wish to assist the Court, can do so..These important directions came about in a petition filed by the Shillong Bar Association, challenging the Rules framed by the Meghalaya High Court allowing the designation of any lawyer as Senior Advocate even if the concerned lawyer is not practising in Meghalaya High Court..The case has a very interesting history..It began when the Meghalaya High Court designated a Delhi-based advocate in 2014. The designation was allegedly made in violation of the Rules framed by the High Court itself..Things did not end there, as two more Delhi-based lawyers were made seniors a year later. This time, however, the High Court amended the criteria prescribed by the Rules, allegedly to facilitate the designations..While the Rules initially mandated a 5-year practice in the Meghalaya High Court for an advocate to be eligible for designation, this was later amended to 10-year practice in any court in India. Another major change to the rule was that any 3 lawyers could recommend an applicant’s name for the gown, as opposed to the earlier condition, which required that the recommending lawyer should also be from Meghalaya High Court..Senior Counsel Meenakshi Arora had submitted when the matter was heard last year,.“Any Senior counsel anywhere in the country can recommend any advocate anywhere in the country. One need not practise in Meghalaya High Court. One may be practising on Chennai and I, who is in Delhi can recommend him for a [senior] gown in Meghalaya.”.The petitioner has sought quashing of the three designations, as well as the Rules framed by the High Court. The Supreme Court had issued notice in the case in October last year, and stayed the amendment..When the matter came up for hearing today, the Bench remarked that it will settle the issue once and for all..Senior Advocate Harish Salve pointed out that a challenge to the Senior designations process by Indira Jaising is already pending before the Supreme Court..The Court, however, remarked that it will decide the case notwithstanding the fact that the other case is pending..It then proceeded to direct the Attorney General to assist the Court. The matter has now been posted for hearing in the first week of August..Read the order below.
