The hearing in Supreme Court challenging the process of Senior Designations came to a close today..A Bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi, Rohinton Fali Nariman and Navin Sinha reserved its verdict after hearing all the parties..This marks the end of a two-year old litigation, which started when Senior Advocate Indira Jaising filed the petition in 2015 seeking guidelines for designating lawyers as Senior Advocates..In her petition, Jaising had questioned the discrimination meted out to capable advocates when it comes to “giving them the gown”. She had alleged violation of Article 14 and 15 by the Supreme Court in the procedure followed for designating lawyers as Senior Advocates..She had also contended that the method of designation by vote leads to unhealthy lobbying with judges and victimizes ethical lawyers who do not lobby. Further, in her petition, she had taken a dig at the current crop of Seniors who hold sway over the Supreme Court practice, alleging that lack of transparency has led to a monopoly of a few Senior Advocates at the Bar..Jaising had followed up her petition with a survey by Bar & Bench where roughly 56 percent of those who participated called for abolishing the institution of Senior Advocates altogether..Subsequently, the Supreme Court had filed an affidavit in the matter admitting that there are no Rules regulating designation of advocates as Seniors but the same is governed by certain resolutions passed by the court from time to time. The court had, however, claimed that the process currently followed is “fair” and “transparent”..The case saw a lot of twists and turns..The matter was initially heard by a Bench of then Chief Justice TS Thakur and Justices DY Chandrachud and L Nageswara Rao. This Bench had then reserved its verdict. However, on the day of pronouncement of verdict, the Court recalled its order of reserving the verdict citing that all stakeholders were not heard. It then ordered that the matter be heard afresh..The matter then went to a Division Bench. In March this year, a Division Bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Navin Sinha ordered that the matter should be heard by a larger Bench..Consequently, a Bench comprising the above two judges and Justice Rohinton Nairman was constituted to hear the case..All the while, the Supreme Court had refrained from making any Senior designations..The matter was finally heard for two days – on August 10 and today..Today’s hearing witnessed an interesting development as the Gujarat High Court Advocates Association (GHCAA) challenged Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961 which classifies advocates into Senior Advocates and other advocates..Moreover, during the hearing today, Secretary of Supreme Court Bar Association, Gaurav Bhatia spoke about the applications for Senior designation, which are pending before the court for two years..“Some members of the Bar came to us. Around 15 applications are pending for two years. If Your Lordships can consider that”, he said..Justice Nariman responded by saying,.“That is why we are hearing the matter. So that we can give a judgment and re-start the process immediately.”.The Court heard out all parties before reserving its verdict. Parties have been given the liberty to file written submissions within one week..Read a detailed account of today’s hearing here.
The hearing in Supreme Court challenging the process of Senior Designations came to a close today..A Bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi, Rohinton Fali Nariman and Navin Sinha reserved its verdict after hearing all the parties..This marks the end of a two-year old litigation, which started when Senior Advocate Indira Jaising filed the petition in 2015 seeking guidelines for designating lawyers as Senior Advocates..In her petition, Jaising had questioned the discrimination meted out to capable advocates when it comes to “giving them the gown”. She had alleged violation of Article 14 and 15 by the Supreme Court in the procedure followed for designating lawyers as Senior Advocates..She had also contended that the method of designation by vote leads to unhealthy lobbying with judges and victimizes ethical lawyers who do not lobby. Further, in her petition, she had taken a dig at the current crop of Seniors who hold sway over the Supreme Court practice, alleging that lack of transparency has led to a monopoly of a few Senior Advocates at the Bar..Jaising had followed up her petition with a survey by Bar & Bench where roughly 56 percent of those who participated called for abolishing the institution of Senior Advocates altogether..Subsequently, the Supreme Court had filed an affidavit in the matter admitting that there are no Rules regulating designation of advocates as Seniors but the same is governed by certain resolutions passed by the court from time to time. The court had, however, claimed that the process currently followed is “fair” and “transparent”..The case saw a lot of twists and turns..The matter was initially heard by a Bench of then Chief Justice TS Thakur and Justices DY Chandrachud and L Nageswara Rao. This Bench had then reserved its verdict. However, on the day of pronouncement of verdict, the Court recalled its order of reserving the verdict citing that all stakeholders were not heard. It then ordered that the matter be heard afresh..The matter then went to a Division Bench. In March this year, a Division Bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Navin Sinha ordered that the matter should be heard by a larger Bench..Consequently, a Bench comprising the above two judges and Justice Rohinton Nairman was constituted to hear the case..All the while, the Supreme Court had refrained from making any Senior designations..The matter was finally heard for two days – on August 10 and today..Today’s hearing witnessed an interesting development as the Gujarat High Court Advocates Association (GHCAA) challenged Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961 which classifies advocates into Senior Advocates and other advocates..Moreover, during the hearing today, Secretary of Supreme Court Bar Association, Gaurav Bhatia spoke about the applications for Senior designation, which are pending before the court for two years..“Some members of the Bar came to us. Around 15 applications are pending for two years. If Your Lordships can consider that”, he said..Justice Nariman responded by saying,.“That is why we are hearing the matter. So that we can give a judgment and re-start the process immediately.”.The Court heard out all parties before reserving its verdict. Parties have been given the liberty to file written submissions within one week..Read a detailed account of today’s hearing here.
