A writ petition challenging the recent designation of senior advocates by the Karnataka High Court, may well be heard by the Madras High Court..M.Veerabhadraiah, a lawyer who had filed the petition, will soon be approaching the Supreme Court with a request to transfer the matter to the High Court of a “neighboring state”. The transfer petition is being filed after the High Court heard an application to list the petition before a judge who had not been present in the Full Court meetings. Chief Justice Waghela said that the application could not be allowed and hence the matter ought to be argued. Veerabhadraiah subseqeuently decided to file a transfer petition..As is the case with the petition filed by TN Raghupathy, the second writ petition also challenges the manner in which fifteen lawyers were recently designated as Senior Advocates by the High Court. But unlike Raghupathy’s petition, which argues that the designations went against the provisions of the Advocate’s Act of 1961, Veerabhadraiah’s petition is a bit more specific..In his petition, Veerabhadraiah has stated that the designations were made before the relevant rules, in this case the Karnataka High Court Designation of Senior Advocates Rules, 2014, were put in place. The petitioner claims that in March this year, a three-judge committee had initiated the process of drafting these rules and the said rules were placed before the Full Court before the summer vacations. The Court did not finalize these rules and it was decided that the matter would be examined after the summer vacations..However, before the said rules were finalized, the High Court went ahead with the designations. The petition states that,.“It is also learnt by the petitioner that, in fact, one item on the agenda of the Full Court meeting was the consideration of the Rules for Designation of Senior Counsels, and another item on the agenda was the consideration of 7 applications for designation as senior advocate. Without any reason being offered whatsoever, the subject, relating to consideration of Draft Rules, 2014 was skipped and instead the subject relating to designation was taken up…”.The draft rules themselves provide a similar set of pre-conditions as prevalent in the Delhi High Court; a minimum of fifteen years of standing, a minimum annual income of ten lac rupees (although this can be waived by the Chief Justice), argued in at least ten reported cases and contributed to the growth of the law in the last three years. It is the petitioner’s argument that these provisions were simply not complied with..The petition also states that a number of lawyers were the relatives of sitting judges of the High Court, and this fact by it self had raised several questions within the Bar. However, it is uncertain whether this has any legal ramifications..Speaking to Bar & Bench, Veerabhadriah said that he would be filing the transfer petition before the Supreme Court within a week’s time. Should the Supreme Court transfer the matter, the process of designations in the Karnataka High Court may well be adjudicated upon by the Madras High Court. As for TN Raghupathy, the senior lawyer said that he would be challenging the order of the High Court as well. Raghupathy said he would be approaching the Supreme Court soon. It thus appears that one way or another, the Apex Court is to play a decisive role in the ongoing debate.
A writ petition challenging the recent designation of senior advocates by the Karnataka High Court, may well be heard by the Madras High Court..M.Veerabhadraiah, a lawyer who had filed the petition, will soon be approaching the Supreme Court with a request to transfer the matter to the High Court of a “neighboring state”. The transfer petition is being filed after the High Court heard an application to list the petition before a judge who had not been present in the Full Court meetings. Chief Justice Waghela said that the application could not be allowed and hence the matter ought to be argued. Veerabhadraiah subseqeuently decided to file a transfer petition..As is the case with the petition filed by TN Raghupathy, the second writ petition also challenges the manner in which fifteen lawyers were recently designated as Senior Advocates by the High Court. But unlike Raghupathy’s petition, which argues that the designations went against the provisions of the Advocate’s Act of 1961, Veerabhadraiah’s petition is a bit more specific..In his petition, Veerabhadraiah has stated that the designations were made before the relevant rules, in this case the Karnataka High Court Designation of Senior Advocates Rules, 2014, were put in place. The petitioner claims that in March this year, a three-judge committee had initiated the process of drafting these rules and the said rules were placed before the Full Court before the summer vacations. The Court did not finalize these rules and it was decided that the matter would be examined after the summer vacations..However, before the said rules were finalized, the High Court went ahead with the designations. The petition states that,.“It is also learnt by the petitioner that, in fact, one item on the agenda of the Full Court meeting was the consideration of the Rules for Designation of Senior Counsels, and another item on the agenda was the consideration of 7 applications for designation as senior advocate. Without any reason being offered whatsoever, the subject, relating to consideration of Draft Rules, 2014 was skipped and instead the subject relating to designation was taken up…”.The draft rules themselves provide a similar set of pre-conditions as prevalent in the Delhi High Court; a minimum of fifteen years of standing, a minimum annual income of ten lac rupees (although this can be waived by the Chief Justice), argued in at least ten reported cases and contributed to the growth of the law in the last three years. It is the petitioner’s argument that these provisions were simply not complied with..The petition also states that a number of lawyers were the relatives of sitting judges of the High Court, and this fact by it self had raised several questions within the Bar. However, it is uncertain whether this has any legal ramifications..Speaking to Bar & Bench, Veerabhadriah said that he would be filing the transfer petition before the Supreme Court within a week’s time. Should the Supreme Court transfer the matter, the process of designations in the Karnataka High Court may well be adjudicated upon by the Madras High Court. As for TN Raghupathy, the senior lawyer said that he would be challenging the order of the High Court as well. Raghupathy said he would be approaching the Supreme Court soon. It thus appears that one way or another, the Apex Court is to play a decisive role in the ongoing debate.
