Read Time: 11 minutes
Court said that a lot of advocates prefer to remain as an Advocate-on-Record or advocates in the High Court and District Courts as the designation as Senior Advocate carries many inhibitions in the role that they can perform, i.e., they have to appear with an instructing counsel, not draft and file pleadings, and not deal with the litigants, etc
The Supreme Court has recently observed that the classification of advocates and the mechanism to grant seniority to advocates is not based on any arbitrary, artificial or evasive grounds, rather it is a creation of legislature and a recognition of merit by the court.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, C T Ravikumar and Sudhanshu Dhulia said that the seniority of advocates is premised on a standardised metric of merit aimed at forwarding the standards of the profession and court has devised a discernible and transparent mechanism to adjudicate the seniority of advocates in the profession.
The court dismissed a writ petition filed by Advocate Mathews Nedumpara, who contended that the designation of senior advocate has created a class of advocates with special rights.
He claimed that it is also seen as a result only for the kith and kin of judges, senior advocates, politicians, ministers, etc causing the legal industry being monopolised by a small group of designated advocates, leaving the vast majority of meritorious law practitioners as ordinary plebians receiving discriminatory treatment.
He questioned the validity of such provisions made under Sections 16 and 23(5) of the Advocates Act, 1961 as well as under Rule 2 of Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, as unconstitutional for being violative of the mandate of equality under Article 14 and Right to Practice any Profession under Article 19 as well as Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The bench, however, described the pleadings of the petitioner as "reckless in character", saying that he went on and on ranting and raving about these issues, completely ignoring the purpose of the provisions.
"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," the bench said.
The court pointed out the classification of advocates as senior advocates and other advocates under Section 16 of the said Act is a classification made by the legislature.
"The legislature has a broad discretion to make such classifications, and while there must be a reason for classification, the reason need not be a good one. The court can only review the classification if it is palpably discriminatory and arbitrary," the bench said.
The bench further pointed out that the classification of advocates under Section 16 of the said Act is a tangible difference established by the practice advocates have over decades.
Likewise, the bench pointed out in order to be able to file any matter in the Supreme Court, an extensive and strict examination for an Advocates-on-Record has been provided.
"Not any advocate can walk in to file a matter. The objective is the efficiency of the system and proper assistance to the bench as also to be in a better position to propagate the case of the client", it said.
The bench also said that a lot of advocates prefer to remain as an Advocate-on-Record or advocates in the High Court and District Courts as the designation as Senior Advocate carries many inhibitions in the role that they can perform, i.e., they have to appear with an instructing counsel, not draft and file pleadings, and not deal with the litigants, etc.
"Thus, a special entitlement to address the Court is coupled with restrictions on many acts which they could otherwise perform as advocates. The designation as a Senior Advocate is a recognition of merit by the Court, and the two judgments passed in Indira Jaising cases have endeavoured to make the process more transparent," the bench said.
The court said that the challenge that classification is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution is untenable since the provision permits the reasonable classification of people by the legislature.
"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," the bench said.
The court also said that a vast number of first-generation lawyers who attained prominence and were designated as senior advocates were sought to be ignored by the petitioner who sought to make out as if the legal profession in India had long been feudalistic and a monopoly of certain higher castes and certain families.
"In fact, in the post-liberalisation period, it is alleged that lawyers no.longer come to be known for their knowledge, values and erudition but for the manifestation of wealth and the proximity to the Bench. These averments are contemptuous in character, and that too by petitioner no 1, who already faced conviction for contempt and debarment from this court to practice," the bench said.
The bench said that the writ petition was a misadventure largely of petitioner number one (Nedumbara) in continuation of some of his past misadventures. "It appears that the judgments and orders passed earlier do not seem to have had any salutary or counselling effect on the petitioner for any self-introspection, but he seeks to carry on a vilification campaign against all and sundry. Obviously, the system is not able to correct him in his approach," the bench said.
Case Title: Mathews J Nedumpara & Ors v. UOI
Please Login or Register
