Jammu & Kashmir High Court Directs Construction of Overhead Bridge or Underpass on Ring Road for Safe Passage of Villagers    |     Minor Injuries No Bar for Framing Charges Under Section 307 IPC if Intent to Kill is Present: Supreme Court    |     Prosecution's Case Full of Glaring Doubts:  Supreme Court Overturns Conviction in Abduction and Murder Case    |     Allegations of Dowry Demand in FIR Found Vague and Driven by Civil Property Dispute: Supreme Court Quashes FIR and Chargesheet in Dowry-Cruelty Case    |     Local Police Failed to Perform its Duties: SC Directs New Investigating Officer in Property Dispute    |     Paternity Established Through SSC and Appointment Order, Legal Obligation to Maintain Unmarried Daughter: Andhra Pradesh High Court    |     No Appeal Shall Be Heard Without Disputed Tax Deposit: Bombay High Court Upholds Constitutionality of Section 96(b) of the Cantonment Act, 2006    |     Parties Must Choose Peace Over Litigation: Calcutta High Court Denies FIR Quashing in Family Dispute, Highlights Mediation Option    |     Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Recruitment of 1091 Assistant Professors and 67 Librarians In Punjab Due to Procedural Flaws    |     Res Judicata Bars Reconsideration of Adoption Validity in Second Round of Litigation: Jammu & Kashmir High Court    |     Candidates who use a party’s symbol must be deemed members of that party: Kerala High Court Upholds Disqualification for Defection    |     Inconsistencies in Eyewitness Accounts and Lack of Forensic Certainty Lead to Acquittal: Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case    |     Delhi High Court Quashes Reassessment Notices Under Section 148 Due to Invalid Sanction by JCIT    |     Summons Under PMLA for Further Investigation Does Not Infringe Right Against Self-Incrimination: Telangana HC    |     Termination During Probation Is Lawful if Concealment of Criminal Case Is Proven: Allahabad HC    |     Disproportionate Fine Cannot Be Imposed for Recovery of 1 Liter of Country-made Liquor: Patna High Court    |     Prosecution failed to prove identity of remains and establish murder beyond reasonable doubt: Orissa High Court Acquit Ex-Husband    |     Despite 12 Injuries on the Victim, No Intention to Kill Found: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Conviction Under Section 304 Part-II IPC    |     Governor’s sanction suffers from non-application of mind: Karnataka High Court Stays Governor’s Sanction for Investigation Against CM Siddaramaiah    |    

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