W.P.(C) No.-000819-000819 / 2016. THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA BAR ASSOCIATION vs THE REGISTRAR GENERAL. Supreme Court, 12-10-2017

Party Name:W.P.(C) No.-000819-000819 / 2016. THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA BAR ASSOCIATION vs THE REGISTRAR GENERAL. Supreme Court, 12-10-2017
Judgement Date:October 12, 2017
Court:Supreme Court
 
FREE EXCERPT
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 454 OF 2015
MS. INDIRA JAISING ...PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
THROUGH SECRETARY GENERAL
AND ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
T.C. (C) No. 1 of 2017,
WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 33 OF 2016; AND
WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 819 OF 2016.
J U D G M E N T
RANJAN GOGOI,J.
1. The petitioner in Writ Petition (C)
No. 454 of 2015 is a Senior Advocate
designated by the High Court of Bombay in the
year 1986. She has been in practice in the
Supreme Court of India for the last several
decades and has also served as an Additional
Solicitor General for the Union of India. The
perception of the petitioner that the present
system of designation of Senior Advocates in
the Supreme Court of India is flawed and the
Digitally signed by
VINOD LAKHINA
Date: 2017.10.12
16:40:56 IST
Reason:
Signature Not Verified
2
system needs to be rectified and acceptable
parameters laid down has led to the
institution of Writ Petition (C) No. 454 of
2015 with the following prayers.
“(a) Issue writ order, or
direction declaring that the system
of designation of Senior Advocates
by recently introduced method of
vote is arbitrary and contrary to
the notions of diversity violating
Articles 14, 15 and 21 and
therefore, it is unconstitutional
and null and void; and
(b) Issue writ order or
direction for appointment of a
permanent Selection Committee with a
secretariat headed by a lay person,
which includes the Respondent 4
Attorney General of India,
representatives from the Respondent
5 –SCBA and the Respondent 6- AOR
Association and academics, for the
designation of Senior Advocates on
the basis of an assessment made on a
point system as suggested in
Annexure P8; and
(c) Issue a writ of mandamus or
direction directing the Respondent-1
representing Chief Justice and
Judges of the Supreme Court to
appoint a Search Committee to
identify the Advocates who conduct
Public Interest Litigation (PIL)
cases and Advocates who practice in
the area of their Domain Expertise
viz., constitutional law,
international arbitration,
3
inter-State water disputes, cyber
laws etc. and to designate them as
Senior Advocates;
(d) Issue a writ of mandamus or
direction directing the Respondent-1
representing Chief Justice and
Judges of the Supreme Court to frame
guidelines requiring the preparation
of an Assessment Report by the Peers
Committee on the Advocates who apply
for designation based on an index
100 points as suggested in Annexure
P8;
(e) Issue a writ of mandamus or
direction directing the Respondent-1
representing Chief Justice and
Judges of the Supreme Court to
reconsider its decision taken in the
Full Court held on 11.02.2014 and
23.04.2015 and designate as Senior
Advocate all those Advocates whose
applications seeking designation had
received recommendation by not less
than five Judges of the Supreme
Court (including deferred
applicants) during the process of
circulation ordered by the Chief
Justice.”
2. Legal practice in India, though a
booming profession, success has come to a few
select members of the profession, the vast
majority of them being designated Senior
Advocates. The issues raised in the writ
petition, therefore, are highly contentious
issues raising question of considerable

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL