The Supreme Court today reserved its judgement in a petition challenging the Meghalaya High Court Senior Designation Rules..The matter came up for hearing before a Bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi, Rohinton Nariman and Navin Sinha..In an earlier hearing on September 12, the Court ordered that the matter be placed before Chief Justice Dipak Misra so that it can be listed before a 3-judge Bench..During the course of the hearing today, Attorney General KK Venugopal submitted,.“There was a time when our profession was known as a noble profession but over the years I am afraid that we have forgotten our roots.”.Making further submissions, he stated that apart from an advocate’s standing, his integrity and the respect of other members of the Bar and the Bench must also be considered as essential aspects..He said that in his opinion, the Court should lay down certain uniform guidelines which would be followed by all High Courts. He then submitted that certain High Courts – Sikkim being one of them – have designated lawyers who have never seen the Court as Senior Advocates, which is tragic..He argued that if a lawyer comes before a different High Court for elevation instead of where he practices, the Court must ask themselves as to why the lawyer is coming to them..Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the amendment to Guideline 3 of the Gauhati High Court guidelines is causing all the trouble..The amendment substitutes the criteria of practicing before the particular Court for a period of 5 years, with practicing in “any court”, including the district court, as a criterion for designation. She said that this guideline goes completely in the teeth of Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act..Senior Advocate Soli Sarabjee, appearing for one of the respondents, submitted that the fact that a person does not practice regularly should also be taken into consideration for elevation as a Senior Advocate..Justice Gogoi at this stage clarified that the Court does not intend to take away the designations of already appointed seniors, but is thinking of laying down uniform guidelines to be followed across the country..Senior Advocate PS Patwalia, appearing for the High Court of Meghalaya, also agreed with Sorabjee’s argument by citing an example of a law professor, who after retirement, started practicing and was elevated as a Senior in a few years. He further submitted that the power to elevate is essentially vested with the Full Court..The Court then asked him,.“Why is the Full Court [of the Meghalaya High Court] specifically amending the rules?” .The Bench then commented that the Full Court must only do so in an appropriate case. It then reserved its judgement in the case.
The Supreme Court today reserved its judgement in a petition challenging the Meghalaya High Court Senior Designation Rules..The matter came up for hearing before a Bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi, Rohinton Nariman and Navin Sinha..In an earlier hearing on September 12, the Court ordered that the matter be placed before Chief Justice Dipak Misra so that it can be listed before a 3-judge Bench..During the course of the hearing today, Attorney General KK Venugopal submitted,.“There was a time when our profession was known as a noble profession but over the years I am afraid that we have forgotten our roots.”.Making further submissions, he stated that apart from an advocate’s standing, his integrity and the respect of other members of the Bar and the Bench must also be considered as essential aspects..He said that in his opinion, the Court should lay down certain uniform guidelines which would be followed by all High Courts. He then submitted that certain High Courts – Sikkim being one of them – have designated lawyers who have never seen the Court as Senior Advocates, which is tragic..He argued that if a lawyer comes before a different High Court for elevation instead of where he practices, the Court must ask themselves as to why the lawyer is coming to them..Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the amendment to Guideline 3 of the Gauhati High Court guidelines is causing all the trouble..The amendment substitutes the criteria of practicing before the particular Court for a period of 5 years, with practicing in “any court”, including the district court, as a criterion for designation. She said that this guideline goes completely in the teeth of Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act..Senior Advocate Soli Sarabjee, appearing for one of the respondents, submitted that the fact that a person does not practice regularly should also be taken into consideration for elevation as a Senior Advocate..Justice Gogoi at this stage clarified that the Court does not intend to take away the designations of already appointed seniors, but is thinking of laying down uniform guidelines to be followed across the country..Senior Advocate PS Patwalia, appearing for the High Court of Meghalaya, also agreed with Sorabjee’s argument by citing an example of a law professor, who after retirement, started practicing and was elevated as a Senior in a few years. He further submitted that the power to elevate is essentially vested with the Full Court..The Court then asked him,.“Why is the Full Court [of the Meghalaya High Court] specifically amending the rules?” .The Bench then commented that the Full Court must only do so in an appropriate case. It then reserved its judgement in the case.
