Orissa High Court Confers 'Senior Designation' On 8 Advocates; No Female Lawyer In The List

Update: 2022-04-29 09:15 GMT

The Orissa High Court has conferred 'senior designation' on 8 Advocates. The notification published by the registry of the High Court notes that in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961 read with Rule 7(1) of the High Court of Orissa (Designation of Senior Advocate) Rules, 2019, the Chief Justice has been pleased to designate the following Advocates...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.

The Orissa High Court has conferred 'senior designation' on 8 Advocates. The notification published by the registry of the High Court notes that in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961 read with Rule 7(1) of the High Court of Orissa (Designation of Senior Advocate) Rules, 2019, the Chief Justice has been pleased to designate the following Advocates as Senior Advocates:

  1. Shri Santanu Kumar Sarangi
  2. Shri Bibekananda Mohanti
  3. Shri Debi Prasad Dhal
  4. Shri Kali Prasanna Mishra
  5. Shri Gautam Mukherji
  6. Shri Subir Palit
  7. Shri Durga Prasad Nanda
  8. Shri Gautam Misra

The notification mentions that it supersedes the Court's earlier notification dated 19th August 2019. By that notification, the Court had designated 5 of the above Advocates as Senior Advocates. They were (i) Bibekananda Mohanti (ii) Debi Prasad Dhal (iii) Gautam Mukherji (iv) Durga Prasad Nanda and (v) Gautam Misra.

However, the same was challenged by four Advocates. While hearing the challenge, a Division Bench of the Court had struck down Rule 6(9) of the High Court of Orissa (Designation of Senior Advocate) Rules, 2019 which conferred power on the Full Court to designate an Advocate as Senior in the absence of any proposal from Judges or application from such Advocate. Consequently, their designations were put on hold. The Court observed therein,

"Opposite Party Nos. 5 to 9 having been graced by the Hon'ble Full Court with the designation of "Senior Advocate", we do not want to disgrace them at present by withdrawing the designation, as there is no fault on their part in the entire exercise. Tomorrow, the Hon'ble Full Court may rethink after exhausting the process under Rule-6 of "2019 Rules" to designate them again as "Senior Advocates", as according to our view, they are deserving, but there may be contrary decision also.

Though we have declared sub-rule (9) of Rule-6 ultra vires, we do not propose to strike down the Notification No.1378, dated 19.08.2019 for the present. It would only cease to be after a decision is taken by the Hon'ble Full Court on the matter regarding designation of "Senior Advocate" is placed before it after exhausting the entire process under Rule-6 in which process applications of Opposite Party Nos.5 to 9 shall also be taken into consideration."

However, this time the Court has reiterated its earlier decision to designate the said 5 Advocates whose designations were put on hold.

Also notably, the list does not feature name of any female Advocate.

Click Here To Read Notification



Tags:    

Similar News