Second Appeal is Not a Forum for Rehearing or Reassessment of Evidence: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Partition Suit Appeal Failure of Justice Must Be Proved, Not Assumed: Calcutta High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Despite Charge Framing Lapse Bail is the Rule, Refusal is an Exception – Right to Liberty Cannot Be Ignored: Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Ivory Coast National in NDPS Case Courts Must Adopt a Justice-Oriented Approach in Matrimonial Cases: Gauhati High Court Condones Delay in Family Court Appeal FIR Quashing | Breath Analyzer Test Alone Cannot Prove Alcohol Consumption: Patna High Court Quashes FIR Under Bihar Prohibition Law Unregistered Writing Cannot Confer Ownership: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Partition Dispute Allegations of Stalking and Criminal Intimidation Must Be Tested at Trial: Gujarat High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Bombay High Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Nestlé Officials Over Maggi Noodles Controversy No Shortcuts in NDPS Investigations – J&K High Court Rebukes Casual Approach of Investigating Officers Sessions Court Cannot Order Re-Investigation: Allahabad High Court Quashes Direction Against Jaypee Hospital If Official Witnesses Are Reliable, Independent Corroboration Is Not a Must:  Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds NDPS Conviction No Service Tax Can Be Levied on Sale of Lottery Tickets: Supreme Court Rules That Lottery Distributors Are Not Agents Courts Cannot Be Silent Spectators When Justice Is Denied Due to Procedural Errors:  Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Recall of Bail Rejection Order Section 27 of the Evidence Act Requires Independent Corroboration—Mere Claims by Police Are Not Enough: Supreme Court on Flawed Investigation Confession to Police Is No Confession in Law: Supreme Court Acquits Man, Citing Inadmissibility of Statements Made in Custody Mere 'Last Seen Together' Is Not Enough for Conviction Unless It Forms a Complete Chain of Circumstantial Evidence: Supreme Court Sets Aside Life Sentence in 16-Year-Old Girl’s Murder Failure to Explain Wife’s Death Strengthens Guilt Under Section 106 of Evidence Act" – Supreme Court Restores Conviction in Murder Case Child Witness Testimony Cannot Be Discarded Solely on Grounds of Tutoring: Supreme Court Restores Conviction in Murder Case

Supreme Court Affirms Legality of Senior Advocate Title: Dismisses Claims of Favouritism

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India has upheld the constitutionality of designating Advocates as Senior Advocates under the Advocates Act, 1961, and the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. The Court dismissed allegations of creating a privileged class of Advocates, emphasizing the importance of merit-based recognition in the legal profession.

The petition, filed by practicing Advocates, had challenged the system of designating Senior Advocates, alleging that it violated the principles of equality, Right to Practice, and Right to Life under the Constitution of India. The petitioners argued that this system had led to the legal industry being monopolized by a select few, including Judges’ relatives and politicians, to the detriment of other meritorious practitioners.

Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, writing the judgment, commented on the reckless nature of the petition’s allegations, stating, “The pleadings of petitioner no.1 are almost reckless in character... These averments are contemptuous in character.”

The Court emphasized that the classification of Advocates into Senior Advocates and other Advocates was based on merit and expertise, not arbitrary or artificial grounds. Justice Kaul stated, “The seniority of advocates is premised on a standardized metric of merit aimed at forwarding the standards of the profession.”

Furthermore, the Court highlighted that the designation of Senior Advocate was a recognition of merit by the Court and was aimed at enhancing the efficiency of the legal system. The Court pointed out that this recognition was subject to strict standards and was not available to all Advocates.

In its conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, stating, “We have not the slightest hesitation in coming to the conclusion that this writ petition is a misadventure largely of petitioner No.1... Obviously, the system is not able to correct petitioner No.1 in his approach.”

This judgment reinforces the role of merit-based recognition in the legal profession and affirms the constitutionality of the Senior Advocate designation. It is seen as a significant decision that upholds the principles of the legal profession while rejecting allegations of privilege and monopolization.

Date of Decision: October 16, 2023

MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA & ORS. vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                 

                 

[gview file="https://lawyerenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/16-Oct-2023_Mathews_Vs_UOI.pdf"]

Similar News