In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has upheld the designation of certain lawyers as “Senior Advocates” granted in 2019. This decision comes in light of challenges raised against the designation process, which questioned the adherence to the guidelines established by the Supreme Court in the landmark Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India case of 2017.
The Court heard Sri Vishnu Behari Tewari, in person and Sri Rohit Kumar, counsel for the petitioner in Writ-C No.19326 of 2019 and Sri G.K. Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ashish Mishra & Sri Chandan Sharma, counsel for the Allahabad High Court.
Background of the Case
The petitions were filed by Vishnu Behari Tewari and Colonel Ashok Kumar (Writ – C No. 17736 of 2019 and Writ – C No. 19326 of 2019, respectively) against the designation of Senior Advocates by the Allahabad High Court. The petitioners contended that the process adopted by the Permanent Committee, established under “The Designation of Senior Advocate Rules, 2018,” was arbitrary and not in compliance with the Supreme Court’s directions.
The primary contention was that the Permanent Committee did not conduct interviews for the applicants, as mandated in the Indira Jaising case, which would have contributed 25 points out of a total of 100. Instead, the Committee assessed applicants out of 75 points, without giving the opportunity for personal interaction, which the petitioners argued was contrary to the law.
Legal Issues Involved
The core legal issues addressed in the judgment included:
1. Compliance with Supreme Court Guidelines: Whether the Permanent Committee adhered to the Supreme Court’s guidelines, especially concerning personal interviews and the criteria for assessment.
2. Validity of Rule 6(5) of the Rules, 2018: Whether the discretion given to the Committee under Rule 6(5) of the Rules, 2018, to waive interviews, was legally sustainable.
3. Transparency in the Designation Process: The challenge to the transparency of the designation process, including the lack of communication regarding cut-off marks and the decision not to provide the merit list of applicants.
Court’s Observations and Decision
The bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh carefully examined the submissions by the petitioners, Vishnu Behari Tewari (in person), and Colonel Ashok Kumar, represented by Rohit Kumar. The court also heard arguments from G.K. Singh, Senior Advocate, along with Ashish Mishra and Chandan Sharma, representing the Allahabad High Court.
The court held that the Permanent Committee’s decision to waive the interview process was in line with Rule 6(5) of the 2018 Rules, which allows such discretion. It stated, “The waiver of personal interviews by the Permanent Committee, considering the number of applicants and the established rapport of the candidates with the court, does not contravene the law laid down in the Indira Jaising case.”
Additionally, the court found no legal infirmity in the decision to fix cut-off marks for determining the eligibility of candidates for designation as Senior Advocates. The judgment emphasized, “The Permanent Committee’s objective assessment based on specific criteria, followed by a Full Court review, aligns with the principles of transparency and fairness.”
However, the court noted that the procedural guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court are dynamic and may require periodic adjustments based on the experience of the courts. It acknowledged the concerns raised about the absence of interviews and stated that “future processes should consider incorporating more transparent mechanisms as envisaged by the Supreme Court.”
The Allahabad High Court’s ruling reaffirms the senior designation of advocates granted in 2019, emphasizing that the decision was made in accordance with the applicable rules and guidelines.
