| Headnote |
Issue for consideration:Designation of Advocates as Senior Advocates u/ss.16 and 23(5),Advocates Act, 1961 as well as u/Or. IV, r.2, Supreme Court Rules,2013, if unconstitutional being violative of the mandate of equalityu/Artilce 14 and Right to Practice any Profession u/Article 19 as wellas Right to Life u/Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as claimed.Advocates Act, 1961 – ss.16, 23(5) – Challenge to – Plea of thepetitioners inter alia that designation of senior Advocates hascreated a class of Advocates with special rights, privileges andstatus and the same has been seen as a result only for kithand kin of Judges, Senior Advocates, politicians, Ministers,etc., resulting in the legal industry being monopolised by asmall group of designated AdvocatesHeld: Pleadings are reckless, completely devoid of merit andjustification, making allegations against all and sundry – Theclassification of advocates as senior advocates and other advocatesu/s.16 is a classification made by the legislature – It has a broaddiscretion to make such classifications, and while there must be areason for classification, the reason need not be a good one – TheCourt can only review the classification if it is palpably discriminatoryand arbitrary – The classification of advocates u/s.16 is a tangibledifference established by the practice advocates have overdecades, and the Court has devised a discernible and transparentmechanism to adjudicate the seniority of advocates in the profession– Designation as a Senior Advocate is a recognition of merit bythe Court, and the two judgments passed in Indira Jaising caseshave endeavoured to make the process more transparent – Thechallenge that the classification is violative of Article 14 is untenable– Constitutional validity of a specific provision cannot be challengedin abstract, but when the provisions violate any fundamental rightsor contravenes any provision of the Constitution, or the legislaturelacks law-making competence – The classification of advocatesand the mechanism to grant seniority to advocates is not based onany arbitrary, artificial or evasive grounds – Such a classificationis a creation of the legislature, and there is a general presumptionof constitutionality, and the burden is on the petitioners to showthat there is a clear transgression of the constitutional principles,which they have miserably failed to discharge – This rule is basedon the assumption, judicially recognized and accepted, that thelegislature understands and correctly appreciates the needs ofthe people – Present writ petition is a misadventure largely ofpetitioner No.1 in continuation of some of his past misadventures,dismissed– Constitution of India – Articles 14, 19, 21, 32. [Paras5, 13-15, 17, 18 and 21]Constitution of India – Article 14 – Designation of Advocatesas Senior Advocates – Violation of Article 14 alleged:Held: Not violated – Article 14 permits the reasonable classificationof people by the legislature – The seniority of advocates is premisedon a standardised metric of merit aimed at forwarding the standardsof the profession – Advocates Act, 1961 – ss.16, 23(5) – SupremeCourt Rules, 2013 – Or. IV, r.2. [Para 18] |
