Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Criminal Antecedents Disentitles Accused To Discretionary Relief Of Bail: Orissa High Court Section 311 CrPC | Delay Or Absence Of Examination-In-Chief No Bar To Summon Material Witnesses: Allahabad High Court Revenue Authorities Lack Jurisdiction To Declare Genuineness Of Wills Or Validity Of Settlement Deeds; Parties Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Demand Of Bribe Is Sine Qua Non For Conviction Under PC Act, Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Not Enough: Bombay High Court 'Promotion Effected Long Ago Not To Be Disturbed': Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Order Quashing 13-Year-Old Promotion; Holds 'Laying Rules' Directory Not Mandatory "Mere Oral Assertion Or 'Data Loss' Letter Not Enough To Prove Driving Licence Validity; Owner Has Strict Duty To Ensure Renewal": Supreme Court Reinstates Insurer's Non-Liability, Applies 'Pay & Recover' Principle "Zero Tolerance To Corruption": Supreme Court Reinstates FIRs Against Karnataka Cops, Slams High Court For 'Mini-Trial' & Exceeding S.482 CrPC Powers ‘Ancillary Services Don't Override Carriage’: Supreme Court Upholds 7.5% Presumptive Income For Cruise Operators Under Section 44B IT Act, Rejects Revenue's Higher Tax Claim Division Bench Refuses To Quash FIR, Holds It Cannot Nullify Single Judge's Final Order Directing Registration Of Case: Allahabad High Court High Court Leave Under Clause XII Doesn't Protect Transferred Suits; Section 16 CPC Strictly Applies To City Civil Court In 'Suits For Land': Bombay High Court Joint Account Holder Who Didn't Sign The Dishonoured Cheque Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 138 NI Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Suits Cannot Be Consolidated If Parties, Properties, And Causes Of Action Are Different: Telangana High Court P&H High Court Halts All Construction In Mohali's Shivalik Foothills Over Failure To Demarcate 'Forest Land', Bars Land Sale No Embargo On Issuing Single Statutory Notice Under Section 138 NI Act For Multiple Dishonoured Cheques: Orissa High Court District Collector Has No Jurisdiction Under CrPC To Order Reopening Of Investigation Or Recall Of Closure Report: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Exclusive Monopoly Over Geographical Term 'Malabar' In Isolation; Protection Limited To Registered Composite Marks: Kerala High Court Person In 'De Facto' Control Is A Promoter Under Companies Act Even If Designated As Professional Director: Karnataka High Court Supreme Court Urges Mandatory Animal Tagging, Strict Enforcement of Gaushala Laws To Tackle Stray Cattle Crisis; Holds Owners Accountable "Don't Render Victims Remediless": Supreme Court Slams High Court For Dismissing Plea Over Stray Bull Death, Awards ₹15 Lakh Compensation Supreme Court Red-Flags 'Unregulated Shadow Work' of Private Investigators, Calls For Legislative Overhaul on Digital Evidence & Privacy Rights 125 CrPC | Wife 'Not Entitled To Interim Maintenance If Adultery Established Ex Facie': Supreme Court Evidence Against Absconder Invalid Without Prior S.299 CrPC Order: SC Acquits Murder Accused Ad Valorem Court Fee Mandatory For Section 54 Appeals Challenging Land Acquisition Awards: Supreme Court

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"]

Latest Legal News