Court No. 1 of the Karnataka High Court today witnessed some of the state’s finest lawyers arguing in the Senior Advocate designation case..Senior Advocates Udaya Holla, SS Naganand, DLN Rao and others appeared for the various respondents. During the course of the hearings, there were a few moments of controversy..Before the arguments commenced, Acting Chief Justice SK Mukherjee called both, Udaya Holla and N Devadas to approach the Bench. During the conversation that ensued, Justice Mukherjee could be heard trying to get the parties to come to a solution in order to avoid further embarrassment..Advocate TN Raghupathy, one of the petitioners, took exception to the fact that he was not included. He went as far as to call the brief meeting an “unholy alliance”, and stated that since the court was coaxing the advocates to settle the matter, he would consider filing a transfer petition. Udaya Holla, however, took strong objection to Raghupathy’s statement, ferociously replying that he had not done anything “unholy” in his career..N Devadas proceeded to finish his arguments from yesterday. At one point, he subtly hinted that there could have been canvassing among judges during the deliberations of designating the applicants..Justice Nagarathna was nonplussed with this allusion, saying,.“I don’t want to talk about canvassing among advocates. Don’t make things unpleasant.”.Next up was SS Naganand, appearing for the Advocates Association of Bangalore. He suggested that the practice of voting by secret ballot should be done away with. Instead, he proposed that judges record their reasons for voting for or against a candidate, who may not reveal all facts..However, Justice Mukherjee highlighted the impracticality of this process, considering the time constraints on the judges. He further asked,.“Can we not trust the applicants to not suppress facts? There has to be some sort of mutual trust between the Bar and the Bench.”.Udaya Holla was next, appearing for the Karnataka High Court. The petitioner had earlier contended that the designations were made before the high court finalized the rules. Holla rebutted this contention by referring to a number of Supreme Court judgments that upheld the high courts’ right to exercise powers conferred on them by a statute, in absence of any rules..He also defended the secret ballot by saying that judges form opinions of advocates when they appear in court and that judges do not vote solely on the basis of the bio-data presented to them before Full Court meetings. Holla also encouraged the practice of designating young advocates as Seniors, something which has been expressed by the Bar as well..“Why shouldn’t they be made Seniors? They are the future of the profession, not us oldies.”.Senior Advocates DLN Rao, Ashok Haranahalli and Nanjund Reddy also argued for the various respondents, reiterating similar points. The advocates for the petitioners will reply tomorrow.
Court No. 1 of the Karnataka High Court today witnessed some of the state’s finest lawyers arguing in the Senior Advocate designation case..Senior Advocates Udaya Holla, SS Naganand, DLN Rao and others appeared for the various respondents. During the course of the hearings, there were a few moments of controversy..Before the arguments commenced, Acting Chief Justice SK Mukherjee called both, Udaya Holla and N Devadas to approach the Bench. During the conversation that ensued, Justice Mukherjee could be heard trying to get the parties to come to a solution in order to avoid further embarrassment..Advocate TN Raghupathy, one of the petitioners, took exception to the fact that he was not included. He went as far as to call the brief meeting an “unholy alliance”, and stated that since the court was coaxing the advocates to settle the matter, he would consider filing a transfer petition. Udaya Holla, however, took strong objection to Raghupathy’s statement, ferociously replying that he had not done anything “unholy” in his career..N Devadas proceeded to finish his arguments from yesterday. At one point, he subtly hinted that there could have been canvassing among judges during the deliberations of designating the applicants..Justice Nagarathna was nonplussed with this allusion, saying,.“I don’t want to talk about canvassing among advocates. Don’t make things unpleasant.”.Next up was SS Naganand, appearing for the Advocates Association of Bangalore. He suggested that the practice of voting by secret ballot should be done away with. Instead, he proposed that judges record their reasons for voting for or against a candidate, who may not reveal all facts..However, Justice Mukherjee highlighted the impracticality of this process, considering the time constraints on the judges. He further asked,.“Can we not trust the applicants to not suppress facts? There has to be some sort of mutual trust between the Bar and the Bench.”.Udaya Holla was next, appearing for the Karnataka High Court. The petitioner had earlier contended that the designations were made before the high court finalized the rules. Holla rebutted this contention by referring to a number of Supreme Court judgments that upheld the high courts’ right to exercise powers conferred on them by a statute, in absence of any rules..He also defended the secret ballot by saying that judges form opinions of advocates when they appear in court and that judges do not vote solely on the basis of the bio-data presented to them before Full Court meetings. Holla also encouraged the practice of designating young advocates as Seniors, something which has been expressed by the Bar as well..“Why shouldn’t they be made Seniors? They are the future of the profession, not us oldies.”.Senior Advocates DLN Rao, Ashok Haranahalli and Nanjund Reddy also argued for the various respondents, reiterating similar points. The advocates for the petitioners will reply tomorrow.
