Senior Advocate Designation Rules Cannot Be Read In A Manner To Do Away With Process Of Interview Completely: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court observed that Rule 6(5) of its Designation of Senior Advocate Rules, 2018, cannot be read in a manner to do away with the process of interview completely.
The Court said that the words "and, if it so desires, may also interact with the concerned advocate(s)" appearing in Rule 6(5) only refer to the power and discretion of the Permanent Committee to interview such applicants who may be shortlisted on the strength of any objective criteria such as cut-off marks allotted on their applications
The Court observed thus in writ petitions seeking direction of restraining the Chief Justice not to designate the approved Advocates by Full Court Meeting held in 2019 as Senior Advocate under Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh held, “... we have no doubt that Rule 6(5) of the Rules if read in a manner to do away with the process of interview completely, would fall foul with the mandatory directions of the Supreme Court in Indira Jaising (IInd case) read with Indira Jaising (Ist case). Seen in that light, the words "and, if it so desires, may also interact with the concerned advocate(s)" appearing in Rule 6(5) of the Rules only refer to the power and discretion of the Permanent Committee to interview such applicants who may be shortlisted on the strength of any objective criteria such as cut-off marks allotted on their applications."
Advocate Vishnu Behari Tewari appeared in person and Advocate Rohit Kumar appeared for the petitioners. Senior Advocate G.K. Singh, Advocates Ashish Mishra, and Chandan Sharma appeared for the respondents.
In this case, the challenge raised in the petitions was to the proceedings, resolution, and consequential action arising from the Full Court Meeting of the High Court in May 2019. Section 16 of the Advocates Act provides for the designation of Senior Advocates and under the scheme of the Act, designation as a Senior Advocate comes by way of a 'distinction' conferred, either by the Supreme Court or a High Court. It arises on the subjective opinion of the Supreme Court or a High Court, that an Advocate is deserving of that ‘distinction’ by virtue of (i) his ability and (ii) standing at the Bar or special knowledge or experience in law.
The petitioners along with 98 others sought conferment of distinction of Senior Advocate by the High Court. In its meeting held, the Permanent Committee had resolved that it had received suggestions with respect to the four applicants. The Permanent Committee also considered the fact that three out of hundred applicants had already been elevated to the bench of the Court and therefore, their names had to be excluded. In the Full Court meeting of the High Court, a resolution was passed to confer distinction of designation as Senior Advocate, on 75 out of 78 names cleared by the Permanent Committee. The distinction sought by two applicants was declined at that Full Court meeting whereas the matter pertaining to one applicant was deferred. The designation was conferred on him, later, by a separate Full Court Meeting resolution.
The High Court in the above context of the case noted, “The ground of challenge of action performed in post haste manner also does not merit our acceptance. It is an undoubted fact that the Full Court was concluded on 18.05.2019. It was an exercise of and by the Court. The resolution of the Full Court is clear. It deserved a prompt notification to be made. The fact that on earlier occasions, in similar circumstances more time may have been taken, may never be a yardstick to measure the bonafides of the impugned action. We are therefore constrained to offer our unequivocal observation that we are dismissive of these contentions advanced by the petitioners. For that reason, we are also unable to confirm the applicability of the law laid down in Bahadursinh Lakhubhai Gohil (supra) and Smt. S.R. Venkata Raman Vs. Union of India, AIR 1979 SC 49.”
The Court added that the petitioners had a grievance with the Court on the administrative side and that they have voiced. It further noted that they also have every right to pursue their grievance and seek adequate relief, on the judicial side but at the same time, that challenge process cannot arise or be propelled or be pursued on unsubstantiated doubts, suspicions or presumptions or assumed bias.
“The entire exercise is found to have been conducted in a transparent and fair manner with objective consideration, at every stage. Even at the Full Court, three names did not go through. Two were declined”, it remarked.
The Court also took note of the fact that five years have passed and on a query made, the counsel for the High Court informed that in 2019, there were more than 18000 advocates registered as Advocate on Roll (AOR) at Prayagraj and more than 10000 advocates were registered as AOR, at Lucknow, with the Court. It said that against those large numbers, in 2019, there were in all, 85 designated Senior Advocates designated by the Court and consequent to the last designations made, there are about 143 Senior Advocates.
“At present, there are 26170 advocates registered as AOR at Prayagraj and 15300 advocates registered as AOR at Lucknow, with this Court. In that background, about 236 applications are described to have been made to the Permanent Committee for conferment of the distinction as Senior Advocate. Those are pending consideration. With that parting observation, both the writ petitions are dismissed”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petitions.
Cause Title- Vishnu Behari Tiwari v. The High Court Judicature at Allahabad and 2 Others (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:143911-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocates Vishnu Behari Tewari and Rohit Kumar.
Respondents: Senior Advocate G.K. Singh, Advocates Ashish Mishra, Chandan Sharma, Amit Kumar Srivastava, Hritudhwaj Pratap Sahi, Sankalp Narain, and Sanjiv Singh.
