Back
2000 Supreme(All) 785
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
R. R. K. Trivedi, S. R. Singh and M. Katju, JJ.
DEMOCRATIC BAR ASSOCIATION, ALLAHABAD - Appellant
Versus
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 16988 Of 2000
Decided On : 05/23/2000
A.D.Giri, K.N.RAHA, Rajeshwar Singh Yadav, SUNIL AMBWANI
Headnote:
The Allahabad High Court in this case examined the validity of the Designation of Senior Advocates Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) and the procedure evolved for the designation of senior advocates under the Advocates Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioners, an association of advocates and two individual advocates, challenged the validity of the Rules and the procedure, contending that they were ultra vires the Act and violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners contended that the Rules were not in consonance with Section 16(2) of the Act and that the procedure excluded advocates practicing in District Courts. They also challenged the authority of the High Court to delegate its statutory function of designating senior advocates to a committee of Hon'ble Judges.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the High Court had the authority to frame the Rules under Section 34(1) of the Act, read with Section 16(2) of the Act. The Court further held that the delegation of the function of designating senior advocates to a committee of Hon'ble Judges was ultra vires Section 16(2) of the Act, as it amounted to an abdication of the essential statutory function of an administrative nature conferred on the Court.
Issues: 1. Whether the High Court can delegate its statutory function under Section 16(2) of the Act, to designate an advocate as senior advocate in favor of a committee consisting of Hon'ble Judges of the Court? 2. Whether Rule 3(B) of the Rules, or on the form it stands in the Rules, is in contravention of the provisions contained in Section 16(2) of the Act and is ultra vires? 3. Whether the High Court has authority to frame the Rules known as designation of Senior advocate Rules, 1999, under Section 34(1) of the Act or under any other provision of the Act or the Constitution, for the purposes of evolving the procedure to be followed for designation of an advocate as senior advocate? 4. Whether the procedure evolved under the impugned Rules excludes the advocates, practicing in the District Courts, or in the Tribunals, from consideration to be designated as senior advocates? 5. To what relief, if any, in the facts and circumstances of the case petitioners are entitled in the present writ petition?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the High Court had the authority to frame the Rules under Section 34(1) of the Act, read with Section 16(2) of the Act, as the function of designating senior advocates was an admixture of legislative and administrative functions and the High Court had the implied power to make rules regulating the exercise of its power in respect of designation of advocates as senior advocates. 2. The Court held that the delegation of the function of designating senior advocates to a committee of Hon'ble Judges was ultra vires Section 16(2) of the Act, as it amounted to an abdication of the essential statutory function of an administrative nature conferred on the Court. The Court held that the Committee could only work as a fact-finding Committee with respect to the eligibility of any advocate recommended by a Judge for being designated as senior advocate and such other facts as may be germane to screening the ability and suitability of the advocate recommended by a Judge for being designated as senior advocate.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the petition and struck down the expression "if it is not disapproved by the Committee" occurring in Rule 3(B) of the Rules. The Court directed that the Rule shall be construed and read in the manner indicated in the body of the judgment.
( 1 ) PETITIONER No. 1, it is claimed, is an association of advocates and petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, who are the advocates practising in High Court, have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the constitution questioning the legality of Rules dated 4. 2. 2000 by which Designation of Senior advocates Rules. 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) have been amended. It has been prayed that amending Rules be declared ultra vires. Inoperative, null and void. It has also been prayed that respondents be restrained from designating senior Advocates in pursuance of impugned Rules. Second relief sought is that respondent No. 1 be directed to consider the advocates practising in District Courts for being designated as senior advocates. It has also been prayed that recommendations made by the Screening Committee on 6. 3. 2000 and 30. 3. 2000 may be quashed.
( 2 ) UNDER Rule 9 of Chapter III of the Rules of the Court Honble the Chief Justice called a Full court meeting to be held on 9. 4. 2000. One of the items for consideration in this meeting was to judge the suitability of some advocates for being designated as senior advocates under Section 16 (2) of the Advocates Act. 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). Petitioners filed this writ petition on 6. 4. 2000 claiming relief mentioned above, Honble the Chief Justice same day passed the following order : "let the matter be placed before a Bench consisting of Honble Mr. Justice R. R. K. Trivedi, honble Mr. Justice S. R. Singh and Honble Mr. Justice M. Katju tomorrow at 10 a. m. "
( 3 ) IN pursuance of the aforesaid order, the writ petition was placed before us on 7. 4. 2000. After hearing learned counsel for the parties at some length we granted time to the parties to exchange counter and rejoinder-affidavits and passed following interim order for the reasons already recorded in the order :
"therefore, we direct that all the names recommended by the Honble Judges of the Court under rule 3 (A) of the Rules for consideration of conferring distinction of senior Advocates shall be placed before the Full Court in its meeting scheduled to be held on 9th April. 2000 irrespective of the fact whether the names have been approved or disapproved by the Committee. The names shall be considered by the Full Court and decision taken through secret ballot as provided under the Rules and the result shall be declared subject to final decision on the writ petition. "
( 4 ) COUNTER affidavit has been filed by Shrl T. M. Khan. Officer on Special Duty. High Court of judicature at Allahabad. Rejoinder-affidavit has not been filed by the petitioners. However. Shri rajeshwar Singh. advocate, petitioner No. 2 has filed a supplementary affidavit annexing therewith a certificate of registration of petitioner No. 1 under Societies Registration Act. 1860. which is Annexure-I to the supplementary affidavit. A certificate dated 1. 8. 1994 has also been filed to the effect that petitioner No. 1 was granted affiliation by the Bar Council of U. P. This certificate bears Affiliation No. 6 of 1994 and is Annexure-2 to the supplementary affidavit.
( 5 ) ON 7. 4. 2000 Sunil Ambwani, learned counsel for the respondents raised preliminary objections against the maintainability of the writ petition. Formal preliminary objection in writing has also been filed. On that date after hearing learned counsel for the parties at some length, we postponed the hearing on the preliminary objection to a later stage at the time of final hearing. Now we wish to deal with the preliminary objection first, as occasion to consider the writ petition on merit shall come only when this Court does not accept the preliminary objection. Shri Sunil Ambwani in support of preliminary objection has submitted that petitioners have no locus standi to file writ petition, they are busy bodies and Inter-meddlers and have no right or cause of action. It has also been stated that petitioner No. 1 is not a registered society. They h
