Delhi HC stays rule mandating joint proposal by three Senior Advocates for Senior designation application

The Delhi High Court today stayed the operation of Rule 7 of the High Court of Delhi Designation of Senior Advocate Rules, 2018 insofar as it calls for a joint proposal by three Senior Advocates for a lawyer to apply for Senior designation.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Rajendra Menon and Justice Anup J Bhambhani has thus allowed advocates to directly apply to the Committee for Senior designation.

As per the Court’s direction, a public notice to this effect will soon be published by the Registrar General.

Meanwhile, the Court has directed the Registrar General to place the petition as well as the counter affidavit submitted by the High Court before the Full Court for reconsideration of the Rule.

The Bench was hearing a petition by Advocates Nandita Rao and Farrukh Rasheed, filed through Advocate Ruchi Singh, challenging the requirement of a joint proposal for the Senior designation application. The Court had issued notice in the matter on May 1.

As per the newly notified High Court of Delhi Designation of Senior Advocate Rules, 2018, an advocate may be considered by the High Court for being designated as Senior Advocate either by the High Court suo motu, or on a joint proposal by three Senior Advocates having five years of individual standing at the Bar.

It is the petitioner’s case that the rule calling for a joint proposal is alien to the criteria for Senior Designations laid down by the Supreme Court in the Indira Jaising case.

The petitioner has argued that such a condition leaves scope for arbitrary discretion and would thus be in violation of Articles 14,15,16 & 21 of the Constitution of India.

It is contended that the Rule creates a “subjective entry barrier” which has no nexus to the rationale criteria for selection of Senior Advocates as laid down by the Supreme Court. It is also contended that such a condition is ultra vires Section 16 of the Advocates Act, which does not stipulate any requirement of peer review.

The High Court had defended the Rule on the ground that it was an additional screening process to enable the Committee to judge a candidate’s standing at the Bar and social knowledge.

Replying to the defence, Justice Menon remarked,

“Why should there be anything which would influence the decision of the Court? The objective satisfaction is that of the Court, not Senior Advocates.”

Keeping in mind the May 25 deadline for making an application for Senior Advocate designation, the Court allowed the advocates to forward their application sans recommendation from three Senior Advocates.

The petitioners have, however, dropped their prayer seeking a direction to the Permanent Committee on Designation of Senior Advocates to invite “meritorious candidates from marginalized castes, genders and religious minorities” in case no applications are received from the section due to “lack of social confidence and networking abilities”.

The Petitioners were represented by Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave.

The matter will be next heard on May 27.

Bar & Bench is available on WhatsApp. For real-time updates on stories, click here to subscribe to our WhatsApp.