First, it was the Karnataka High Court in the south, then Supreme Court in the north, and then the Meghalaya High Court in the east. And now it is the Kerala High Court..To connect the dots, it is the Senior Advocate designations by these courts which have been a source of disenchantment at the Bar leading to court battles..A petition filed by advocates MKS Menon, PB Sahasranamam and V Santharam challenging certain Senior Advocate designations made by the Kerala High Court came up for hearing today before a Bench presided by Chief Justice TS Thakur. The Supreme Court, however, refused to entertain the matter and asked the petitioner to move the High Court first before approaching the Supreme court..The petitioners have challenged the designations of advocates Rajan Joseph, Bechu Kurian and PV Surendranath along with the procedure followed by the High Court for designating advocates as Seniors..Senior Advocate CU Singh appeared for the petitioner along with advocate Usha Nandini..Procedure by High Court – ‘Election’ and not ‘selection’.The petitioner’s main submission is that the procedure followed by the High Court in designating Senior Advocates is not in accordance with law. The Kerala High Court follows a system of secret ballot by a full court in which each judge is given a ballot paper with a ‘yes’ and ‘no’ option against each applicant. A candidate should secure 2/3 of the votes of the judges present and voting to be designated as Senior Advocate..The petitioners have contended that this procedure reduces designation process to ‘election’ and not ‘selection’. They have submitted that the ability and standing at the Bar of an applicant is not taken into account by this process..“It is respectfully submitted that the above manner in which the applications were considered is not in accordance with law. The ability and standing at the Bar is to be considered individually and not on the basis of ballot. It is a selection process and not an election process. The merit of the candidate has to be evaluated on the basis of his ability. But what is going on in the past is not a proper method. It is because of the said reason Hon’ble Justice Vinod Chandran has opposed the said practice and written a letter to the Chief Justice requesting to change the present practice.”.Designation of three advocates – Bechu Kurian Thomas, PV Surendranath and Rajan Joseph.Regarding the designation of Bechu Kurian Thmas and PV Surendranath, the petitioners have contended that they did even get the minimum number of votes required for the 2/3rd majority prescribed..“In the Judges meeting held on 19th August, 2015, 32 (thirty two) judges were present for voting. In order to get 2/3rd majority one has to get 22 (twenty two) votes (that is 2/3 of 32). But by a wrong interpretation of the Rules, it was decided that the eligibility point as 21 (Twenty one). Adv. Bechu Kurian Thomas got only 20 (twenty) votes and Adv. P.V.Surendranath secured only 21 votes. There after Hon’ble Chief Justice then declared that he is casting his vote in favour of Adv. Bechu Kurian Thomas and thus he can be declared as selected for the reason that he will get 21 votes. The expression “not less than two-third number of judges present at such meeting and voted” should mean that two-thirds of the Judges present and voting. In this case two thirds of the total number of Judges present must mean two-thirds of the 32 which comes 21.33 and the candidate must obtain minimum 22 votes and not 21. Thus Adv. Bechu Kurian Thoms and Adv. P.V.Surendranath are not having the minimum required marks (votes). Thus the acceptance of their nomination is illegal and arbitrary and are also against the procedure propounded and followed till date.”.As regards Rajan Joseph, their contention is that he hardly has any active practice and has filed only 10 vakalaths in the last 3 years and that “many of the judges will not even recognize him if he comes before them.”.“The name of Adv. Rajan Joseph was recommended by Hon’ble Justice C.K.Abdul Rahim. No doubt that he was the Additional Advocate General few years back on account of his political clout but it is also a fact that during the last three years he has filed only 10 (ten) vakalaths and has not appeared before many of the Judges who exercised their vote in his favor. Many of the judges will not even recognize him even if he comes before them in person, because he did not appear before them at all. It is reliably understood that he is a person who has already abandoned his practice. He secured maximum number of 23 votes.”.The petitioners have alleged that all the 3 advocates who were designated “have the support of Judges one way or the other but the petitioners and 4 other candidates who are having more number of cases and judgments, testimonials and articles to their credit have not been considered since they could not manage a judge who can further their candidature.”.The petitioners have also submitted that there are several senior members of the Bar who are eligible to be designated as Senior Advocates. However, they do not get designated because they do not want to prescribe to the present practice of “canvassing” due to their “self-respect and integrity”..Prayers.Based on the above, the petitioners have prayed for the following:.direction declaring that the system of designation of Senior Advocates by the method of voting alone adopted by High Court of Kerala, is arbitrary, and contrary to the notions of diversity violating Article 14, 15 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India;.reconsider the decision taken by them on August 19, 2015 and designate the petitioners as Senior Advocates if they hold equal or better credentials than any of the advocates who was declared as Senior Advocates in the full court meeting held on that day;.direction to Kerala High Court to designate as Senior Advocates all those Advocates whose application seeking designation had been rejected but having special knowledge in any subject evidenced by judgments of either the Supreme Court or Kerala High Court or at least received 5 votes in the meeting on 19th August 2015 as a one-time measure..The same petition is now likely to be agitated before the Kerala High Court..Disillusionment at the Bar – Karnataka, Delhi, Meghalaya and now Kerala.In January of this year, a couple of Delhi-based lawyers were designated Seniors by the Meghalaya High Court, allegedly in violation of the Rules. In December last year, the Karnataka High Court was also witness to a challenge to the designation of 14 Senior Advocates. That petition was however dismissed by the High Court..Senior Advocate Indira Jaising is presently challenging the system of designations in the Supreme Court..Read the petition below..(Take the Bar & Bench survey on senior designations)
First, it was the Karnataka High Court in the south, then Supreme Court in the north, and then the Meghalaya High Court in the east. And now it is the Kerala High Court..To connect the dots, it is the Senior Advocate designations by these courts which have been a source of disenchantment at the Bar leading to court battles..A petition filed by advocates MKS Menon, PB Sahasranamam and V Santharam challenging certain Senior Advocate designations made by the Kerala High Court came up for hearing today before a Bench presided by Chief Justice TS Thakur. The Supreme Court, however, refused to entertain the matter and asked the petitioner to move the High Court first before approaching the Supreme court..The petitioners have challenged the designations of advocates Rajan Joseph, Bechu Kurian and PV Surendranath along with the procedure followed by the High Court for designating advocates as Seniors..Senior Advocate CU Singh appeared for the petitioner along with advocate Usha Nandini..Procedure by High Court – ‘Election’ and not ‘selection’.The petitioner’s main submission is that the procedure followed by the High Court in designating Senior Advocates is not in accordance with law. The Kerala High Court follows a system of secret ballot by a full court in which each judge is given a ballot paper with a ‘yes’ and ‘no’ option against each applicant. A candidate should secure 2/3 of the votes of the judges present and voting to be designated as Senior Advocate..The petitioners have contended that this procedure reduces designation process to ‘election’ and not ‘selection’. They have submitted that the ability and standing at the Bar of an applicant is not taken into account by this process..“It is respectfully submitted that the above manner in which the applications were considered is not in accordance with law. The ability and standing at the Bar is to be considered individually and not on the basis of ballot. It is a selection process and not an election process. The merit of the candidate has to be evaluated on the basis of his ability. But what is going on in the past is not a proper method. It is because of the said reason Hon’ble Justice Vinod Chandran has opposed the said practice and written a letter to the Chief Justice requesting to change the present practice.”.Designation of three advocates – Bechu Kurian Thomas, PV Surendranath and Rajan Joseph.Regarding the designation of Bechu Kurian Thmas and PV Surendranath, the petitioners have contended that they did even get the minimum number of votes required for the 2/3rd majority prescribed..“In the Judges meeting held on 19th August, 2015, 32 (thirty two) judges were present for voting. In order to get 2/3rd majority one has to get 22 (twenty two) votes (that is 2/3 of 32). But by a wrong interpretation of the Rules, it was decided that the eligibility point as 21 (Twenty one). Adv. Bechu Kurian Thomas got only 20 (twenty) votes and Adv. P.V.Surendranath secured only 21 votes. There after Hon’ble Chief Justice then declared that he is casting his vote in favour of Adv. Bechu Kurian Thomas and thus he can be declared as selected for the reason that he will get 21 votes. The expression “not less than two-third number of judges present at such meeting and voted” should mean that two-thirds of the Judges present and voting. In this case two thirds of the total number of Judges present must mean two-thirds of the 32 which comes 21.33 and the candidate must obtain minimum 22 votes and not 21. Thus Adv. Bechu Kurian Thoms and Adv. P.V.Surendranath are not having the minimum required marks (votes). Thus the acceptance of their nomination is illegal and arbitrary and are also against the procedure propounded and followed till date.”.As regards Rajan Joseph, their contention is that he hardly has any active practice and has filed only 10 vakalaths in the last 3 years and that “many of the judges will not even recognize him if he comes before them.”.“The name of Adv. Rajan Joseph was recommended by Hon’ble Justice C.K.Abdul Rahim. No doubt that he was the Additional Advocate General few years back on account of his political clout but it is also a fact that during the last three years he has filed only 10 (ten) vakalaths and has not appeared before many of the Judges who exercised their vote in his favor. Many of the judges will not even recognize him even if he comes before them in person, because he did not appear before them at all. It is reliably understood that he is a person who has already abandoned his practice. He secured maximum number of 23 votes.”.The petitioners have alleged that all the 3 advocates who were designated “have the support of Judges one way or the other but the petitioners and 4 other candidates who are having more number of cases and judgments, testimonials and articles to their credit have not been considered since they could not manage a judge who can further their candidature.”.The petitioners have also submitted that there are several senior members of the Bar who are eligible to be designated as Senior Advocates. However, they do not get designated because they do not want to prescribe to the present practice of “canvassing” due to their “self-respect and integrity”..Prayers.Based on the above, the petitioners have prayed for the following:.direction declaring that the system of designation of Senior Advocates by the method of voting alone adopted by High Court of Kerala, is arbitrary, and contrary to the notions of diversity violating Article 14, 15 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India;.reconsider the decision taken by them on August 19, 2015 and designate the petitioners as Senior Advocates if they hold equal or better credentials than any of the advocates who was declared as Senior Advocates in the full court meeting held on that day;.direction to Kerala High Court to designate as Senior Advocates all those Advocates whose application seeking designation had been rejected but having special knowledge in any subject evidenced by judgments of either the Supreme Court or Kerala High Court or at least received 5 votes in the meeting on 19th August 2015 as a one-time measure..The same petition is now likely to be agitated before the Kerala High Court..Disillusionment at the Bar – Karnataka, Delhi, Meghalaya and now Kerala.In January of this year, a couple of Delhi-based lawyers were designated Seniors by the Meghalaya High Court, allegedly in violation of the Rules. In December last year, the Karnataka High Court was also witness to a challenge to the designation of 14 Senior Advocates. That petition was however dismissed by the High Court..Senior Advocate Indira Jaising is presently challenging the system of designations in the Supreme Court..Read the petition below..(Take the Bar & Bench survey on senior designations)
![[Breaking] Kerala High Court Senior designations challenged in Supreme Court [Read Petition]](http://media.assettype.com/barandbench%2Fimport%2F2015%2F07%2FScreenshot_2015-07-24-12-39-23-e1507888487960.png?w=480&auto=format%2Ccompress&fit=max)
