Oral Judgment : (Per : N. W. Sambre, J.)

1. Heard finally by consent.

2. The petitioner, a lawyer registered with the Bar Council of Chattisgarh received accordingly a Sanad on 05/05/2013, copy of which is produced at page 208 of the petition. Since the Sanad was issued after 2009-2010, the same is required to be verified pursuant to provisions of Rule 8.1, Chapter IV of the Bar Council of India, Notification dated 12/01/2015 which reads thus :

8.1 : An advocate graduating in law in academic year 2009- 2010 (1^st July, 2009 to 30^th June, 2010) and thereafter, enrolled on the “Roll of Advocates” on or after June 12, 2010, is required to apply for issuance of “Certificate of Practice” under All India Bar Examination Rules, 2010 and for verification of such “Certificate of Practice” from the State Bar Council in which he/ she is enrolled as an advocate under Rule 9.

In this backdrop, the petitioner has prayed this Court for following relief :

(a) Direct the Respondent No.01 to provide the “Sanad” and “Enrollment No.MAD/167/2013” to the petitioner who are eligible “Other Senior Advocates” under section 16 of the Advocate Act, 1961 on the basis of her practices/ability and the Bar of Special Knowledge or experience of Law.

(b) Direct the Respondent No.01 and 02 to accept the form- E, in which to the “Other Senior Advocates” Section 16 of the Advocate Act 1961 on the basis of her practices/ability and the Bar of Special Knowledge or experience of Law.

Direct the “Administrative Committee”, the petitioner enrolled on the “Enrollment No.MAD/167/2013” in which “Object Petition” under Rule 14.6, Explanation, within 15 days.

3. The petitioner is claiming that she is entitled to be conferred with the designation of ‘Senior Advocate’ in lieu of she having completed 10 years practice pursuant to the registration referred above and the mandate provided under Article 51A of the Constitution of India. According to the petitioner, a female lawyer is entitled for such benefit as the petitioner cannot be treated unequally and the mandate under Article 51A contemplates fundamental duties to be discharged by the Authorities including that of the respondents.

4. As far as the aforesaid relief claimed in the petition is concerned, the counsel for the respondents would urge that the same cannot be granted as it is not within the purview of this Court. According to him, the issue is squarely covered by the Division Bench Judgment of the Karnataka High Court in case of T. N. Raghupathy & Ors. vs. High Court of Karnataka through its Registrar General and ors. 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 93.

5. We have appreciated the aforesaid submission.

The claim of the petitioner is for conferring designation of ‘Senior Advocate’ which powers are exclusively vested in the High Court.

The foremost authority on the designation of Senior Advocate is the Apex Court Judgment in the matter of Indira Jaisingh vs. Supreme Court of India, Through Secretary General and ors. 2017 9 SCC 766, wherein the Supreme Court has laid down the guidelines which govern the designation of Senior Advocates by the Supreme Court and all High Courts in the country. In paragraphs 73 and 74 of the said judgment it is observed thus :

“ 73. It is in the above backdrop that we proceed to venture into the exercise and lay down the following norms/guidelines which henceforth would govern the exercise of designation of Senior Advocates by the Supreme Court and all High Courts in the country. The norms/ guidelines, in existence, shall be suitably modified so as to be in accord with the present.

73.1. All matters relating to designation of Senior Advocates in the Supreme Court of India and in all the High Courts of the country shall be dealt with by a Permanent Committee to be known as “Committee for Designation of Senior Advocates”;

73.2 The Permanent Committee will be headed by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India and consist of two senior-most Judges of the Supreme Court of India (or High Court(s), as may be); the learned A