Many First Generation Lawyers Have Made Their Mark In Legal Profession & Have Got Senior Designation : Supreme Court

Many first generation lawyers have made their mark in the profession and have attained prominence and have been conferred with senior designations, observed the Supreme Court while rejecting an argument that the "senior designation" system was benefiting only a special class of lawyers which comprise of the kith and kin of judges, prominent lawyers, politicians and Ministers.The bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sudhansdhu Dhulia and CT Ravikumar was dealing with a writ petition filed by Advocate Mathews J Nedumpara and few others seeking to abolish the practice of conferring senior designation.At the outset, the Court noted that the pleadings in the writ petition are "almost reckless in character", ignoring the fact that "a vast number of first-generation lawyers who attained prominence and were designated as Senior Advocates.""We find the pleadings completely devoid of merit and justification, making allegations against all and sundry. This is more so in the conspectus of the large growth in the legal profession where a large number of first generation lawyers have made their mark. These lawyers, some of them young ones, have come from National Law Schools and other prominent Law Schools. Instead of appreciating their contribution, petitioner No.1 has used his usual style of making allegations against all and sundry," the Court observed in the judgment.The petitioners challenged Sections 16 and 23(5) of the Advocates Act, 1961.Section 16 of the Advocates Act says, "there shall be two classes of advocates, namely, senior advocates and other advocates" and says that the Supreme Court and the High Courts can confer senior designation. Section 23 (5) prescribes that senior advocates shall have pre-audience over other lawyers and their right of pre-audience inter se shall be determined by their respective seniority.The Court held that the mechanism of conferring senior designation on advocates was not arbitrary or artificial. It said that the classification of advocates as senior and non-senior advocates was not unreasonable and was based on standardised merit. It also noted that the Court has laid down elaborate guidelines to streamline the process of senior designation in the judgment in the case Indira Jaising v. Union of India."The classification of advocates under Section 16 of the said Act is a tangible difference established by the practice advocates have over decades, and the Court has devised a discernible and transparent mechanism to adjudicate the seniority of advocates in the profession.""The seniority of advocates is premised on a standardised metric of merit aimed at forwarding the standards of the profession. Thus, the classification of advocates and the mechanism to grant seniority to advocates is not based on any arbitrary, artificial or evasive grounds. Such a classification is a creation of the legislature, and there is a general presumption of constitutionality, and the burden is on the petitioners to show that there is a clear transgression of the constitutional principles – something which they have miserably failed to discharge."The bench also dismissed the allegations of the petitioners that the senior designation system resulted in unfairness to junior members. A large number of first generation lawyers have made their mark and have also secured senior designation, Supreme Court observed."If one may say, the indulgence of the junior members of the bar is in one sense more than the senior members of the bar because it is also a part of the duty of the bench to help in the evolution of the bar," the bench stated in the judgment.The Court also noted in the judgment that the petitioner number 1 was earlier punished for contempt of court. However, the said judgment does not seem to have salutary or counselling effect on petitioner number 1 for any self introspection, said the Court, as "he has carried on with his vilification campaign against all and sundry."The Court stated that the challenge to the legal provisions were made in the abstract and that the petitioner kept on "ranting and raving about these issues, completely ignoring the purpose of the provisions he seeks to assail and the narrow compass of challenge to legislations."Case DetailsMathews J. Nedumpara & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 320 of 2023Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 897Click here to read the judgment

Many First Generation Lawyers Have Made Their Mark In Legal Profession & Have Got Senior Designation : Supreme Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags