The Kerala High Court dismissed a petition filed by advocate PB Sahasranaman seeking designation as Senior Advocate. The Court also held that the High Court is empowered to frame Rules for designating lawyers as Senior Advocates..The judgment was delivered by Justice Dama Sheshadri Naidu. Senior Advocate P Ravindran appeared for the petitioner, while Senior advocate NN Sugunapalan appeared for the Kerala High Court..Capturing the essence of the petition, the Court in its introduction paragraph says:.“A learned lawyer longs for recognition; he seeks a favour from the judges before whom he pleads daily—designation as a Senior Advocate. The judges, cautious as they are, remain reluctant to confer the favour. They deliberate the issue and calibrate the counsel. They decide that time has not yet come for the lawyer to make the mark, to get the grade, and to earn the distinction. The judges reckon conferring is not for mere asking; it must be earned. So, they refuse. Ruffled, the lawyer questions: he files this writ petition. Is the lawyer impatient, imprudent, impudent, or justly insistent?”.Sahasranaman is a lawyer with 33 years of standing at the Bar. He had given his consent for being designated Senior Advocate in 2014, but the Court informed him that he had failed to secure the votes of two-third judges “present” in the meeting, as required under Rule 6 of the Rules framed under Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act..Aggrieved, Sahasranaman first moved the Supreme Court, but later withdrew that petition, choosing to agitate the matter before the Kerala High Court..P Ravindran, appearing for Sahasranaman, contended that Section 16 of the Advocates Act, dealing with matters such as designating an advocate as a senior counsel, delegates no power to the High Court to frame Rules..In the alternative, he submitted that the proposal to designate any advocate as a senior counsel shall be treated as rejected only if fewer than two-thirds of the judges “present and voting” “actively” refuse to endorse that proposal. In other words, when there are two columns – Yes and No – against each advocate’s name, those judges marked neither ‘yes’ nor ‘no’. So, casting an unmarked ballot is nothing but an abstention by the concerned judge..Besides, Sahasranaman had sought to ascertain how many judges abstained from casting their vote, by filing a Right to Information application only to be met with the reply: ‘The records have been destroyed’. This act of destruction of records by the Kerala High Court, he submitted, was in violation of the Kerala Destruction of Records Rules, 1966..The Court, after considering various precedents and statutory provisions in the field, held the following:.“Judges present” differ from “judges present and voting”. They both cannot be conflated; nor can they be taken as synonymous. “Judges present” includes the judges abstained or voted “blank.” Abstentions, if any, must be counted to reckon two-thirds majority unless the Rules make the position as the High Courts of Delhi and Gujarat have done.”.Regarding destruction of ballot papers the court held that,.“Ballot papers are not part of the record to be preserved; they can be preserved only with the Full Court’s consent, not at the request of an applicant.”.Regarding the High Court’s power to frame Rules, the Court ruled that,.“The Courts making Rules is not a sine qua non for them to exercise their powers under Section 16 of the Act. [T]he Conditions subject to which an advocate shall be permitted to practice in the High Court” as prescribed under Section 34 of the Act encompasses the process of designating advocates as Seniors. And the Rules made by the High Court specifying Section 16 of the Act as the source of power do not fall foul.”.The Court also had some words of wisdom for the petitioner stating that he was neither imprudent nor impudent, but impatient..“…legal nuances apart, litigation for designation robs the advocate of the gravitas the designation demands..And, finally, I may say, the petitioner is neither imprudent nor impudent. He is, perhaps, impatient. His insistence on the Court’s conferring on him what is treated as an honour or a privilege fails to gather judicial muster, literally and legally. He may revive his efforts in two years from the day the Full Court rejected his request.”.The Court, therefore, proceeded to dismiss the petition..Read the judgment below.
The Kerala High Court dismissed a petition filed by advocate PB Sahasranaman seeking designation as Senior Advocate. The Court also held that the High Court is empowered to frame Rules for designating lawyers as Senior Advocates..The judgment was delivered by Justice Dama Sheshadri Naidu. Senior Advocate P Ravindran appeared for the petitioner, while Senior advocate NN Sugunapalan appeared for the Kerala High Court..Capturing the essence of the petition, the Court in its introduction paragraph says:.“A learned lawyer longs for recognition; he seeks a favour from the judges before whom he pleads daily—designation as a Senior Advocate. The judges, cautious as they are, remain reluctant to confer the favour. They deliberate the issue and calibrate the counsel. They decide that time has not yet come for the lawyer to make the mark, to get the grade, and to earn the distinction. The judges reckon conferring is not for mere asking; it must be earned. So, they refuse. Ruffled, the lawyer questions: he files this writ petition. Is the lawyer impatient, imprudent, impudent, or justly insistent?”.Sahasranaman is a lawyer with 33 years of standing at the Bar. He had given his consent for being designated Senior Advocate in 2014, but the Court informed him that he had failed to secure the votes of two-third judges “present” in the meeting, as required under Rule 6 of the Rules framed under Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act..Aggrieved, Sahasranaman first moved the Supreme Court, but later withdrew that petition, choosing to agitate the matter before the Kerala High Court..P Ravindran, appearing for Sahasranaman, contended that Section 16 of the Advocates Act, dealing with matters such as designating an advocate as a senior counsel, delegates no power to the High Court to frame Rules..In the alternative, he submitted that the proposal to designate any advocate as a senior counsel shall be treated as rejected only if fewer than two-thirds of the judges “present and voting” “actively” refuse to endorse that proposal. In other words, when there are two columns – Yes and No – against each advocate’s name, those judges marked neither ‘yes’ nor ‘no’. So, casting an unmarked ballot is nothing but an abstention by the concerned judge..Besides, Sahasranaman had sought to ascertain how many judges abstained from casting their vote, by filing a Right to Information application only to be met with the reply: ‘The records have been destroyed’. This act of destruction of records by the Kerala High Court, he submitted, was in violation of the Kerala Destruction of Records Rules, 1966..The Court, after considering various precedents and statutory provisions in the field, held the following:.“Judges present” differ from “judges present and voting”. They both cannot be conflated; nor can they be taken as synonymous. “Judges present” includes the judges abstained or voted “blank.” Abstentions, if any, must be counted to reckon two-thirds majority unless the Rules make the position as the High Courts of Delhi and Gujarat have done.”.Regarding destruction of ballot papers the court held that,.“Ballot papers are not part of the record to be preserved; they can be preserved only with the Full Court’s consent, not at the request of an applicant.”.Regarding the High Court’s power to frame Rules, the Court ruled that,.“The Courts making Rules is not a sine qua non for them to exercise their powers under Section 16 of the Act. [T]he Conditions subject to which an advocate shall be permitted to practice in the High Court” as prescribed under Section 34 of the Act encompasses the process of designating advocates as Seniors. And the Rules made by the High Court specifying Section 16 of the Act as the source of power do not fall foul.”.The Court also had some words of wisdom for the petitioner stating that he was neither imprudent nor impudent, but impatient..“…legal nuances apart, litigation for designation robs the advocate of the gravitas the designation demands..And, finally, I may say, the petitioner is neither imprudent nor impudent. He is, perhaps, impatient. His insistence on the Court’s conferring on him what is treated as an honour or a privilege fails to gather judicial muster, literally and legally. He may revive his efforts in two years from the day the Full Court rejected his request.”.The Court, therefore, proceeded to dismiss the petition..Read the judgment below.