The first batch of designation of Senior Advocates in the country under the new scheme, that recently took place at the Karnataka High Court, has now come under challenge..A petition has been filed in the High Court by four lawyers – Puthige R Ramesh, MH Sawkar, Ganesh Krishna Bhat, and BL Acharya – on the ground that the designations were made in an arbitrary and irrational manner..The petitioners have thus sought for quashing of the notification dated November 11, 2018, and have urged the Court to order that the designation process be conducted afresh..One of the grounds for the challenge is that several provisions of the High Court of Karnataka (Designation of Senior Advocates), Rules, 2018 have been violated in the recently conducted designation process..“…sub-rules 2 and 3 of Rule 6 of the Rules requires publication in official web-site all the information provided by the applicant in support of the application and also requires publication of the data collected by the Secretariat and on the basis of the said materials, the other stake-holders are invited to offer their suggestions/views..In the present case, the steps completed under sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 6 of the Rules were reduced to an empty formality because the Secretariat merely published the names of the 68 applicants in the official web-site without giving any details whatsoever and called for the other stake-holder’s suggestions/views regarding the applicants.”.The petitioners also claim that the process was concluded in a hasty manner after two judges of the High Court were recommended for transfer by the Supreme Collegium on October 29 last year. One of the judges sought to be transferred – Justice Vineet Kothari – was part of the Committee in charge of deciding the designation of Senior Advocates..One day before the farewell ceremony for the two judges, the petition claims, then Chief Justice Dinesh Maheshwari held a Full Court meeting to consider the designation of the applicants as Senior Advocates. The petition states,.“Curiously, on 14.11.2018 it was widely known among the members of the Bar of the High Court of Karnataka that the Hon’ble Chief Justice would insist in the Full Court meeting on 15.11.2018 that only applicants who had secured 50 points and above in the assessment made by the Committee would only be designated as Senior Advocates….…this proposal made by the Chief Justice was opposed by some of the Hon’ble Judges participating in the Full Court meeting. The petitioners further learn that one of the Hon’ble Judges insisted on voting by secret ballot…It is also learnt reliably that the Hon’ble Chief Justice however overruled the said objections and insisted before the Full Court that only those who had secured 50 points and above would be designated as Senior Advocates and Full Court was not allowed to exercise its power independently.”.The petition claims that the Rules do not provide for any cut-off, as was allegedly done by the Chief Justice. It is also claimed that a pre-determined decision was taken to prescribe a certain benchmark and thereafter the Committee deliberately kept the tally of points of some of the advocates including the petitioners herein below the said pre-determined benchmark. .Further, the petition claims that seniority of the applicants was not considered while designating the Senior Advocates..“Committee entirely over looked the seniority/ standing at the Bar of the large number of Advocates including the petitioners herein and recommended designation of juniors with far lesser credentials. The petitioners have strong reason to believe that the Committee awarded points under the respective heads in an arbitrary and irrational manner.”.Less deserving lawyers have been designated as Senior Advocates, the petitioners claim, and most of the designees were within the ages of 40 and 47..An example is given of Lakshmy Iyengar, who, according to the petitioners, secured the maximum marks. It is claimed that Iyengar has only eight reported judgments to her name, as opposed to petitioner Puthige Ramesh, who has over 260..Another allegation made is that Advocate General Udaya Holla, who is part of the Committee deciding who gets designated, participated in the interviews of his former junior and two Additional Advocates General who were ultimately designated..“…the participation of learned Advocate General in respect of the claims of one of his erstwhile juniors and two of close associates namely two Additional Advocates General also gives rise to apprehension of bias on the part of the learned Advocate General…”.The petitioners also point out that they had filed RTI applications seeking information on the points awarded by the Committee. It was found that the members of the Committee – which comprises the Chief Justice, two seniormost judges of the High Court, the Advocate General, and a nominee from among the Bar – did not give individual scores to the applicants..On the abovementioned grounds, among others, the petitioners have sought a direction to quash the designation of the 18 Senior Advocates and to start the process afresh..This is not the first time Senior Designations have been challenged at the Karnataka High Court. The last time designations were made, in 2014, a petition challenging the process of designation was filed by TN Raghupathy..Read the petition:
The first batch of designation of Senior Advocates in the country under the new scheme, that recently took place at the Karnataka High Court, has now come under challenge..A petition has been filed in the High Court by four lawyers – Puthige R Ramesh, MH Sawkar, Ganesh Krishna Bhat, and BL Acharya – on the ground that the designations were made in an arbitrary and irrational manner..The petitioners have thus sought for quashing of the notification dated November 11, 2018, and have urged the Court to order that the designation process be conducted afresh..One of the grounds for the challenge is that several provisions of the High Court of Karnataka (Designation of Senior Advocates), Rules, 2018 have been violated in the recently conducted designation process..“…sub-rules 2 and 3 of Rule 6 of the Rules requires publication in official web-site all the information provided by the applicant in support of the application and also requires publication of the data collected by the Secretariat and on the basis of the said materials, the other stake-holders are invited to offer their suggestions/views..In the present case, the steps completed under sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 6 of the Rules were reduced to an empty formality because the Secretariat merely published the names of the 68 applicants in the official web-site without giving any details whatsoever and called for the other stake-holder’s suggestions/views regarding the applicants.”.The petitioners also claim that the process was concluded in a hasty manner after two judges of the High Court were recommended for transfer by the Supreme Collegium on October 29 last year. One of the judges sought to be transferred – Justice Vineet Kothari – was part of the Committee in charge of deciding the designation of Senior Advocates..One day before the farewell ceremony for the two judges, the petition claims, then Chief Justice Dinesh Maheshwari held a Full Court meeting to consider the designation of the applicants as Senior Advocates. The petition states,.“Curiously, on 14.11.2018 it was widely known among the members of the Bar of the High Court of Karnataka that the Hon’ble Chief Justice would insist in the Full Court meeting on 15.11.2018 that only applicants who had secured 50 points and above in the assessment made by the Committee would only be designated as Senior Advocates….…this proposal made by the Chief Justice was opposed by some of the Hon’ble Judges participating in the Full Court meeting. The petitioners further learn that one of the Hon’ble Judges insisted on voting by secret ballot…It is also learnt reliably that the Hon’ble Chief Justice however overruled the said objections and insisted before the Full Court that only those who had secured 50 points and above would be designated as Senior Advocates and Full Court was not allowed to exercise its power independently.”.The petition claims that the Rules do not provide for any cut-off, as was allegedly done by the Chief Justice. It is also claimed that a pre-determined decision was taken to prescribe a certain benchmark and thereafter the Committee deliberately kept the tally of points of some of the advocates including the petitioners herein below the said pre-determined benchmark. .Further, the petition claims that seniority of the applicants was not considered while designating the Senior Advocates..“Committee entirely over looked the seniority/ standing at the Bar of the large number of Advocates including the petitioners herein and recommended designation of juniors with far lesser credentials. The petitioners have strong reason to believe that the Committee awarded points under the respective heads in an arbitrary and irrational manner.”.Less deserving lawyers have been designated as Senior Advocates, the petitioners claim, and most of the designees were within the ages of 40 and 47..An example is given of Lakshmy Iyengar, who, according to the petitioners, secured the maximum marks. It is claimed that Iyengar has only eight reported judgments to her name, as opposed to petitioner Puthige Ramesh, who has over 260..Another allegation made is that Advocate General Udaya Holla, who is part of the Committee deciding who gets designated, participated in the interviews of his former junior and two Additional Advocates General who were ultimately designated..“…the participation of learned Advocate General in respect of the claims of one of his erstwhile juniors and two of close associates namely two Additional Advocates General also gives rise to apprehension of bias on the part of the learned Advocate General…”.The petitioners also point out that they had filed RTI applications seeking information on the points awarded by the Committee. It was found that the members of the Committee – which comprises the Chief Justice, two seniormost judges of the High Court, the Advocate General, and a nominee from among the Bar – did not give individual scores to the applicants..On the abovementioned grounds, among others, the petitioners have sought a direction to quash the designation of the 18 Senior Advocates and to start the process afresh..This is not the first time Senior Designations have been challenged at the Karnataka High Court. The last time designations were made, in 2014, a petition challenging the process of designation was filed by TN Raghupathy..Read the petition: