The arguments in the Karnataka High Court Senior Advocate designation case began today in Courtroom No. 1..Last June, two writ petitions were filed in the high court challenging the designation of 15 lawyers by the Karnataka High Court..When the High Court dismissed the matter on grounds of locus, the petitioners approached the Supreme Court. In December last year, the Supreme Court had directed the Karnataka High Court to hear the matter on merits..Appearing in person before a bench comprising Acting Chief Justice SK Mukherjee and Justice Nagarathna, advocate TN Raghupathy began his arguments. At the outset, Justice Mukherjee requested the parties to refrain from naming the advocates in question. As an aside, he contemplated as to whether he should hear the matter, given the fact that Indira Jaising has filed a similar PIL in the Supreme Court..Raghupathy argued that last year’s designations were made in a manner contrary to the spirit of the Advocates Act, and that the designations were in contravention of Section 16(2) of the Act. He also submitted that the recommendations from existing Seniors should be done voluntarily and not on the basis of an application by advocates..Further, he questioned the system of voting by the Full Court by secret ballot. However, Justice Mukherjee pointed out that the voting was done by secret ballot so that the advocates don’t know which judge voted against them..Senior Advocate N Devadas, appearing on behalf of the other petitioner, M Veerabhadriah, also made his arguments today. He asked the court as to why the designations were done in two batches and not at one go. Justice Nagarathna replied saying that only the first batch of applications came on the Full Court’s agenda for that day. Devadas also pointed out that the first round of designations were made before the High Court’s Designation of Senior Advocates Rules were finalised by the court..At the close of the day’s proceedings, Justice Mukherjee suggested that the parties come to a settlement to end what he described as “an embarrassing litigation for all concerned”. He proposed that the court will frame new rules for the designation of Senior Advocates to be strictly followed in the future. However, Devadas was unrelenting in his approach, terming the whole controversy as an insult to the very institution of the High Court..A battery of Seniors appeared for the respondents. Senior Advocates Udaya Holla and SS Naganand, representing the Union of India and the Advocates Association respectively, were present. Other Seniors including DLN Rao and Ashok Haranahalli were also in attendance..On a lighter note, Justice Mukherjee elicited a few laughs from those present in the court room when he told Raghupathy before he commenced arguments,. “They are your brothers! Why am I hearing this matter?”.In another incident, Raghupathy gave examples of deserving Seniors who were designated at a very old age. One such example was opposing Counsel Udaya Holla’s father, who was designated at the age of 80, on the same day as his son. To this, Justice Nagarathna commented in jest,.“Was it a case of the father being designated too late or the son being designated too early?”.Arguments will continue tomorrow.
The arguments in the Karnataka High Court Senior Advocate designation case began today in Courtroom No. 1..Last June, two writ petitions were filed in the high court challenging the designation of 15 lawyers by the Karnataka High Court..When the High Court dismissed the matter on grounds of locus, the petitioners approached the Supreme Court. In December last year, the Supreme Court had directed the Karnataka High Court to hear the matter on merits..Appearing in person before a bench comprising Acting Chief Justice SK Mukherjee and Justice Nagarathna, advocate TN Raghupathy began his arguments. At the outset, Justice Mukherjee requested the parties to refrain from naming the advocates in question. As an aside, he contemplated as to whether he should hear the matter, given the fact that Indira Jaising has filed a similar PIL in the Supreme Court..Raghupathy argued that last year’s designations were made in a manner contrary to the spirit of the Advocates Act, and that the designations were in contravention of Section 16(2) of the Act. He also submitted that the recommendations from existing Seniors should be done voluntarily and not on the basis of an application by advocates..Further, he questioned the system of voting by the Full Court by secret ballot. However, Justice Mukherjee pointed out that the voting was done by secret ballot so that the advocates don’t know which judge voted against them..Senior Advocate N Devadas, appearing on behalf of the other petitioner, M Veerabhadriah, also made his arguments today. He asked the court as to why the designations were done in two batches and not at one go. Justice Nagarathna replied saying that only the first batch of applications came on the Full Court’s agenda for that day. Devadas also pointed out that the first round of designations were made before the High Court’s Designation of Senior Advocates Rules were finalised by the court..At the close of the day’s proceedings, Justice Mukherjee suggested that the parties come to a settlement to end what he described as “an embarrassing litigation for all concerned”. He proposed that the court will frame new rules for the designation of Senior Advocates to be strictly followed in the future. However, Devadas was unrelenting in his approach, terming the whole controversy as an insult to the very institution of the High Court..A battery of Seniors appeared for the respondents. Senior Advocates Udaya Holla and SS Naganand, representing the Union of India and the Advocates Association respectively, were present. Other Seniors including DLN Rao and Ashok Haranahalli were also in attendance..On a lighter note, Justice Mukherjee elicited a few laughs from those present in the court room when he told Raghupathy before he commenced arguments,. “They are your brothers! Why am I hearing this matter?”.In another incident, Raghupathy gave examples of deserving Seniors who were designated at a very old age. One such example was opposing Counsel Udaya Holla’s father, who was designated at the age of 80, on the same day as his son. To this, Justice Nagarathna commented in jest,.“Was it a case of the father being designated too late or the son being designated too early?”.Arguments will continue tomorrow.
