Special Appeal Maintainable If Single Judge's Order Relates To Authority Acting Without Statutory Appellate Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court Recall Of Witness For Cross-Examination Permissible On Newly Framed Issue Post-Remand Even If Disposal Timeline Is Fixed: Karnataka High Court Litigant Cannot Overcome Law Of Limitation By Shifting Blame On Counsel Through Inconsistent Stands: Madras High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Preventive Detention Not Warranted If Person Can Be Dealt With Under Ordinary Laws; No Effort To Arrest In Pending Cases: Supreme Court Writ Petition Cannot Be Dismissed On ‘Forum Non Conveniens’ If Respondent's Office Is Within Court's Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Supreme Court Doubts 'Sajjan Singh' Ruling; Refers To Larger Bench Whether Third Judge Can Re-examine Unanimous Findings Under Section 392 CrPC SARFAESI Sale Vitiated If Balance 75% Bid Amount Is Paid Beyond 15 Days Without Written Extension Agreement: Supreme Court Delhi High Court Can't Refuse Writ Petition Against BSF Dismissal Merely Because Cause Of Action Arose Outside Delhi: Supreme Court Private Rights Must Yield To Public Interest: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Public Road Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Re-Agitate Factual Disputes Or Seek Re-Hearing On Merits: Allahabad High Court Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act Vitiated If Police Already Present At Spot Before Arrival Of Panch Witnesses: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Compliance Or Delay In Procedure Under Section 52A NDPS Act Is An Irregularity, Not An Illegality Entitling Accused To Bail: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction If Ocular Evidence Is Corroborated: Allahabad High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept Idle To Rot In Police Stations, Utility Vanishes Due To Stagnation: Karnataka High Court Or 39 CPC | Trial Court Erred In Dismissing Injunction Application Despite Respondent's 'No Objection' To Restraining Share Transfer: Gauhati High Court Issuing NBW Merely For Absence Of Accused Already On Bail Is Improper; Liberty Cannot Be Dealt With Lightly: Orissa High Court 138 NI | Expert Examination Of Disputed Documents Essential For Just Adjudication If Complainant Denies Handwriting & Signatures: Rajasthan High Court Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Fill Lacunae In Evidence If Party Voluntarily Closed Evidence In Trial Court: Delhi High 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