'No Application Of Mind Of Full Court': Plea In Supreme Court Challenges 19 Senior Designations Given By P&H HC

A writ petition has been moved before the Supreme Court challenging the recent notification of the Punjab & Haryana High Court designating 19 lawyers (which included 2 women advocates) as Senior Advocates. The plea has been moved by advocate Malak Manish Bhatt alleging that the Notification had been illegally drawn contrary to the Rules 9 to 11 and the directions issued in the case of Indira Jaising case. The plea has averred that the criteria of marks, the final lists, or recommendations were drawn illegally, merely at ipse dixit and not as per the marks/ranking and relative merit, and never placed the entire result of 112 candidates before Full Court for approval. It may be noted that the Punjab and Haryana High Court had, on May 28, designated 19 lawyers (including 2 women advocates) as Senior Advocates. The decision was taken at a full-court meeting in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act 1961, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. Averments in the plea The plea states that in pursuance of Indira Jaising's case, the Rules were framed and applications were invited, with the cut-off date as 04-04-2019 and 113 applications were received. Further, it submits that no action whatsoever thereon was taken until recently and all of a sudden on 19-05-2021, 113 applicants were 'surprisingly called' physically to High Court premises "Permanent committee sat online during such interactions between 20th to 22nd May, 2021, [almost 08 hours], barely giving even a minute's time to each of the 112 candidates [one had died but records were not update for two years]," the plea states. Further, it goes on to state that reportedly, a list of 41 candidates had been prepared and another list was reportedly drawn on May 23, 2021 and on 25-05-2021, a list of 27 recommended candidates were in circulation without disclosing the relative merit of all candidates vis-a-vis the designees. The plea alleges that the fate of such 85 candidates, some of them with reasonable, consistent and good practice of 40 years, many of whom have been Additional Advocate Generals in the past and who have been waiting for last 07 years for senior designation, was summarily decided in a matter of 07 days from 19.05.2021 to 26.05.2021, in utter violation of Rules 9 to 11."Obviously, in the absence of any agenda, data or material of 85 candidates, there was no application of mind of the Full Court as mandated under Rule 10," the plea avers. Prayers in the plea Production of the complete records of the case and the same be ordered to be supplied/placed in safe custody and be preserved all through the pendency of the present Writ Petition; Direction to quash the impugned notification dated 28.05.2021 as the same has illegally been drawn contrary to the Rules 9 to 11 and the directions and guidelines issued by Indira Jaising case.Direction to the official respondents to strictly adhere to the directions of the Hon'ble court, and relevant rules in redrawing and re-working out the list of advocates for senior designation in pursuance of relevant rules dated 15.03.2018 and notice issued on 07.03.2019 Direction to the Permanent Committee to strictly work within the domain of rules 9 and 10 and directives of the court and to declare the merit list based upon objective criteria only and placing the entire result before Full Court for approval and directing that the full court to resort to voting on the list compiled only in terms of rule The operation of the impugned notification dated 28.05.2021 be stayed during the pendency of this case.

'No Application Of Mind Of Full Court': Plea In Supreme Court Challenges 19 Senior Designations Given By P&H HC

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags