Senior Designation Is Premised On Standardized Metric Of Merit Aimed At Forwarding Standards Of Profession: SC Dismisses Plea Challenging System Of Designating Senior Advocates
The Supreme Court, today, dismissed the Writ Petition challenging the designation of Advocates as Senior Advocates under Sections 16 and 23(5) of the Advocates Act, 1961. The Petition compared 'Senior designation' to that of Queen's counsel in 18th century England and stated that this practice was unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.
In the judgement pronounced by the Bench consisting of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, and Justice C.T. Ravikumar, the Court stated, "Designation of senior advocate cannot be said to be untenable under article 14 as reasonable classification is permitted. The Seniority of an Advocate is premised on a standardized metric of merit aimed at forwarding the standards of the profession. The classification of Senior advocates is not based on any arbitrary, artificial or evasive grounds."
The Bench also stated, "If one may say that indulgence of the junior members of the bar is in one sense more than a senior member because it is also part of the duty of the bench to help with the evolution of the bar. The underlying principle for ages has been that the credit should go to a junior counsel without discredit going to him. Thus we don't have the slightest hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the Petition is a misadventure of Petitioner No. 1 in continuation of some of his past misadventures."
Remarking upon the conduct of the Petitioner, the Bench also stated. "It appears that the judgements and orders passed earlier do not seem to have any counselling effect on Petitioner No.1 for self-introspection and he seems to carry on a vilification campaign. The system is not able to correct Petitioner No.1 in his approach."
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition, upholding the constitutionality of the relevant statutory provisions.
On the last date of the hearing, Justice Kaul had while reserving the Judgement made certain significant remarks on the crucial role of junior lawyers in the legal profession and how the Court provides them with patient hearings, prioritizing their growth and development to ensure a vibrant and evolving legal community.
Justice Kaul stated, "Junior lawyers get patient hearings from the Courts. Every junior lawyer in our Court will get a better hearing. I will interrupt a senior lawyer, but I will hear the junior lawyer more patiently because it is the duty of the Bench to see that the younger bar evolves, and we have all benefited from it. It is not that I am doing it out of the blue or any of us is doing it out of the blue; the younger lawyers got the benefit of hearing. We used to say the credit goes to a junior and discredit, if any, used to go to the Senior. This is the practice followed always. This is how the Bar evolves."
The Writ Petition filed by Advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara asserted that the designation of Senior Advocates has created a class of Advocates with special rights, and it has been perceived as reserved only for the kith and kin of judges and Senior Advocates, politicians, ministers, etc., resulting in the legal industry being "monopolized."
Nedumpara argued that the Senior Advocate system is an obstacle. He stated that during even the British era, there were no senior advocates and that Sections 16 and 23 of the Act were discriminatory as they affected the ordinary class of litigants.
However, the Court refused to revisit the Indira Jaising Case. Justice Kaul stated. Previously, the Court had asked the Petitioner to amend the memo of parties and had stated that they would not accept a cavalier approach to this Court. The Petitioner had impleaded the Supreme Court through its Judges instead of the Secretary-General.
Cause Title: Mathews J. Nedumpara & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [WP(C) No. 320/2023]
