2023 Supreme(SC) 1044
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, C. T. RAVIKUMAR, SUDHANSHU DHULIA
Mathews J. Nedumpara – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s):Petitioner-in-person
Judgement Key Points
- The designation of advocates as senior advocates under Sections 16 and 23(5) of the Advocates Act, 1961, and Rule 2 of Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, creates two classes of advocates: senior advocates and other advocates. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) [1000785490009]
- Senior advocates are designated with their consent by the Supreme Court or High Court based on ability, standing at the Bar, special knowledge, or experience in law. (!) (!)
- Senior advocates are subject to restrictions prescribed by the Bar Council of India in the interest of the legal profession and have pre-audience over other advocates, determined by seniority. (!) (!) (!) (!)
- The constitutional validity of provisions cannot be challenged in abstract; it requires violation of fundamental rights under Part III, contravention of constitutional provisions, or lack of legislative competence, with direct and inevitable impact on people. [1000785490013]
- Classification of advocates into senior and other advocates under Section 16 is a legislative classification with broad discretion, reviewable only if palpably discriminatory or arbitrary; the reason for classification need not be a good one, but must exist in good faith. [1000785490014][1000785490015]
- The classification reflects tangible differences based on decades of practice, with a transparent mechanism for designating senior advocates based on expertise and merit to ensure efficiency, proper assistance to the bench, and client representation. [1000785490016]
- Designation as senior advocate entails special entitlement to address the court but imposes restrictions, such as appearing only with instructing counsel, not drafting or filing pleadings, and not dealing directly with litigants; it is a recognition of merit. [1000785490016]
- Article 14 permits reasonable classification; seniority of advocates is based on a standardized metric of merit to advance professional standards, not arbitrary, artificial, or evasive grounds, with a presumption of constitutionality that petitioners failed to rebut. [1000785490017]
- Legislature is presumed to understand and appreciate the needs of people, with laws directed to experienced problems and based on adequate grounds. [1000785490017][1000785490018]
- The system supports junior counsel development, with credit to juniors without discredit, aiding evolution of the bar, including those who become judges. [1000785490019]
- Petitioners' challenge alleging violation of Articles 14, 19, and 21 through creation of a privileged class monopolizing practice due to nepotism or favoritism lacks merit and is based on reckless, contemptuous allegations. [1000785490001][1000785490004][1000785490005][1000785490007][1000785490012][1000785490020]
- Writ petition dismissed as a misadventure by petitioner No.1, continuing past frivolous actions without self-introspection. [1000785490020][1000785490021]
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.
1. The petitioners, practicing Advocates, have filed the present writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for a declaration that the designation of Advocates as Senior Advocates under Sections 16 and 23(5) of the Advocates Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said Act’) as well as under Rule 2 of Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, creating a special class of Advocates with special rights, privileges and status not available to ordinary Advocates is unconstitutional being violative of the mandate of equality under Artilce14 and Right to Practice any Profession under Article 19 as well as Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is their say that such designation has created a class of Advocates with special rights, and the same has been seen as a result only for kith and kin of Judges, Senior Advocates, politicians, Ministers, etc., resulting in 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.
2. We may notice that it is contended that this Court in Indi
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
