Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RANJAN GOGOI, NAVIN SINHA, JJ.
Indira Jaising - Petitioner
Versus
Supreme Court of India Through Secretary General and Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No(S). 454 of 2015 with T.C.(C) NO. 1 of 2017
Decided on : 22-03-2017
Fact of the Case:
The court was considering the constitutional validity of Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961 and the framing of guidelines for designation of practicing Advocates as designated Senior Advocate(s) in the Supreme Court.Finding of the Court:
The court found that the issues at hand may impact the process and procedure of designation of Senior Advocate(s) by both the High Courts and the Supreme Court. It deemed it necessary to hear other stakeholders and decided that a larger bench should hear the matter due to its vital importance.Issues:
Constitutional validity of Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961; Framing guidelines for designation of practicing Advocates as designated Senior Advocate(s).Ratio Decidendi:
The court emphasized the importance and impact of its decision on the process and procedure for designating Senior Advocate(s) in both High Courts and the Supreme Court.Final Decision:
The matter was referred to a larger bench, leaving interim designations to the discretion of the High Courts and Supreme Court.ORDER :
1. In some of the cases listed before us, the constitutional validity of Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961 is under challenge whereas in Writ Petition (Civil) No.454 of 2015 this Court has been called upon to frame guidelines for designation of practicing Advocates as designated Senior Advocate(s) in the Supreme Court.
2. Having regard to the issues arising in the present group of cases we are of the view that the decision of this Court on the said issues may have effect on the process and procedure of designation of Senior Advocate(s) by the High Courts in the country, apart from the Supreme Court of India. We are, therefore, of the tentative view that it is necessary to hear other stake holders. Further more, it is also necessary to know the precise guidelines that are in force in different High Courts for designation of Senior Advocates.
3. The issue being of vital importance, we are of the view that the matter should be heard by a larger bench. We, therefore, request the Registry of this Court to lay the papers of this case before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India forthwith for constitution of a larger bench of such strength that the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India may consider it appropriate.
4. Registry to act accordingly.
5. So far as the designation during the interregnum is concerned, we leave the matter to the discretion of the High Court(s) as well as this Court.
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
