A few weeks after 15 lawyers were designated Senior Advocates by the Karnataka High Court, a PIL has been filed in the very same court, challenging this designation process..The petition, filed by Advocate TN Raghupathy, challenges the process on the grounds that it is contrary to the provisions of Advocate Act, 1961 (the Act). He has also sought the quashing of the two notifications designating 15 lawyers as senior advocates..Earlier this year, the Karnataka High Court had designated Aditya Sondhi, Sajan Poovayya, Shashi Kiran Shetty and Prabhuling Navadgi as Senior Advocates. A few weeks later, the High Court designated another 11 lawyers including BM Shyam Prasad, Dhyan Chinnappa, DL Jagadish, G Krishna Murthy, M B Nargand, M N Sheshadri, M V Seshachala, R L Patil, V Lakshminarayana, Vivek Subba Reddy and YR Sadashiva Reddy..Raghupathy has impleaded these 15 Senior Advocates in the PIL along with the High Court of Karnataka and Union of India..The petitioner alleges that the High Court norms that permit an advocate to apply for the designation as a senior advocate go against the language and spirit of Section 16(2) of the Act..Referring to Section 16 (2) of the Act, the petitioner states that the first prerequisite for being designated a senior advocate is that there must be an opinion formed by the Court that a person deserves to be designated as a senior advocate by virtue of his ability, or standing at the Bar. The second step is obtaining the concerned lawyer’s consent..The petitioner therefore says that the norm of filing an application, by an advocate seeking his designation is the very “anti-thesis” of Section 16(2) of the Act. Section 16 of the Act does not envisage filing of an application by an advocate seeking his designation by the Supreme Court or the High court as Senior Advocate..Should this process be continued, states the petition, it shall undermine “the majesty” of the institution of Senior Advocates..The petitioner states that since ‘Senior Advocate’ is an honor bestowed on an advocate by the High Court, filing of an application by the concerned advocate would rather disqualify him for being considered for the said honor. The petition also challenges the use of a simple majority to decide designations, arguing that S. 16(2) requires a decision to be made by a Full Court. The existing provisions of law certainly do not envisage the use of simple majority, as is the current practice, nor do the provisions allow for a secret ballot..There is more..Raghupathy has also briefly mentioned the need to allow designations at the district court-level as well; perhaps designations based on the recommendation of a district judge..Citing his own career, Raghupathy states that,.“[In a] long career of more than 39 years as an advocate he has come across number of brilliant lawyers from mofussil courts who should have been honored by designating them as senior advocates. This could have been possible if the High Court had adopted the practice of gathering information from Principal District Judges of each district.”.As has been reported elsewhere, the trigger for this particular PIL may be the relatively young ages of some of the lawyers who were chosen by the High Court..This particular fact finds mention in the petition itself, where it is stated that the recent designations have,.“[Deprived] many advocates who are more experienced and distinguished advocates of being honored with the distinction of being designated as senior advocates.”.This particular argument does hold a fair degree of truth. The former Advocate General of Karnataka, Senior Advocate Udaya Holla has described the requirement to apply for designation as “idiotic”. He contends that,.“If one is worthy of becoming a Senior Advocate, there should be no need for one to apply”. .Arvind Datar, whose name was proposed for elevation to the Supreme Court, in an interview to Bar & Bench has said,.“I would die a junior, but I would never apply”..The matter is likely to come up for admission next week and if the court does issues notice, then it will be interesting to see how the Court and the Bar tackle this issue.
A few weeks after 15 lawyers were designated Senior Advocates by the Karnataka High Court, a PIL has been filed in the very same court, challenging this designation process..The petition, filed by Advocate TN Raghupathy, challenges the process on the grounds that it is contrary to the provisions of Advocate Act, 1961 (the Act). He has also sought the quashing of the two notifications designating 15 lawyers as senior advocates..Earlier this year, the Karnataka High Court had designated Aditya Sondhi, Sajan Poovayya, Shashi Kiran Shetty and Prabhuling Navadgi as Senior Advocates. A few weeks later, the High Court designated another 11 lawyers including BM Shyam Prasad, Dhyan Chinnappa, DL Jagadish, G Krishna Murthy, M B Nargand, M N Sheshadri, M V Seshachala, R L Patil, V Lakshminarayana, Vivek Subba Reddy and YR Sadashiva Reddy..Raghupathy has impleaded these 15 Senior Advocates in the PIL along with the High Court of Karnataka and Union of India..The petitioner alleges that the High Court norms that permit an advocate to apply for the designation as a senior advocate go against the language and spirit of Section 16(2) of the Act..Referring to Section 16 (2) of the Act, the petitioner states that the first prerequisite for being designated a senior advocate is that there must be an opinion formed by the Court that a person deserves to be designated as a senior advocate by virtue of his ability, or standing at the Bar. The second step is obtaining the concerned lawyer’s consent..The petitioner therefore says that the norm of filing an application, by an advocate seeking his designation is the very “anti-thesis” of Section 16(2) of the Act. Section 16 of the Act does not envisage filing of an application by an advocate seeking his designation by the Supreme Court or the High court as Senior Advocate..Should this process be continued, states the petition, it shall undermine “the majesty” of the institution of Senior Advocates..The petitioner states that since ‘Senior Advocate’ is an honor bestowed on an advocate by the High Court, filing of an application by the concerned advocate would rather disqualify him for being considered for the said honor. The petition also challenges the use of a simple majority to decide designations, arguing that S. 16(2) requires a decision to be made by a Full Court. The existing provisions of law certainly do not envisage the use of simple majority, as is the current practice, nor do the provisions allow for a secret ballot..There is more..Raghupathy has also briefly mentioned the need to allow designations at the district court-level as well; perhaps designations based on the recommendation of a district judge..Citing his own career, Raghupathy states that,.“[In a] long career of more than 39 years as an advocate he has come across number of brilliant lawyers from mofussil courts who should have been honored by designating them as senior advocates. This could have been possible if the High Court had adopted the practice of gathering information from Principal District Judges of each district.”.As has been reported elsewhere, the trigger for this particular PIL may be the relatively young ages of some of the lawyers who were chosen by the High Court..This particular fact finds mention in the petition itself, where it is stated that the recent designations have,.“[Deprived] many advocates who are more experienced and distinguished advocates of being honored with the distinction of being designated as senior advocates.”.This particular argument does hold a fair degree of truth. The former Advocate General of Karnataka, Senior Advocate Udaya Holla has described the requirement to apply for designation as “idiotic”. He contends that,.“If one is worthy of becoming a Senior Advocate, there should be no need for one to apply”. .Arvind Datar, whose name was proposed for elevation to the Supreme Court, in an interview to Bar & Bench has said,.“I would die a junior, but I would never apply”..The matter is likely to come up for admission next week and if the court does issues notice, then it will be interesting to see how the Court and the Bar tackle this issue.
