A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court found the pleadings, which also prayed for the removal of designation of ‘senior advocate’, as completely devoid of merit, and making sweeping generalisations and accusations.
—
ON Monday, a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court dismissed a petition filed by advocate Mathew J. Nedumpara challenging the classification of advocates as senior advocates under Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
Berating the petitioner, the Bench which comprised Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, C.T. Ravikumar and Sudhanshu Dhulia, said the pleadings were completely devoid of merit and justification, making allegations against all and sundry.
The Bench termed the petition by Nedumpara as a misadventure in continuation of some of his past misadventures. The Bench was referring to Nedumpara’s conviction under the Contempt of Court Act, 1971.
On merits, the Bench opined that the classification of advocates under Section 16 is a tangible difference established by the practice advocates have over decades, and the court has devised a discernible and transparent mechanism to adjudicate the seniority of advocates in the profession.
The Bench noted that the classification of advocates and the mechanism to grant seniority to advocates is not based on any arbitrary, artificial or evasive grounds.
Such classification, the Bench said, is a creation of the legislature, and there was a general presumption of constitutionality, and the burden was on the petitioners to show that there is a clear transgression of the constitutional principles— something which they have miserably failed to discharge.
The Bench held that the designation as a senior advocate is a recognition of merit by the Court, and the judgment by the court in Indira Jaising versus Supreme Court of India, has endeavoured to make the process more transparent.
The Bench also expressed displeasure at the pleadings made by Nedumpara. It said that the pleadings were almost reckless in character.
“The vast number of first-generation lawyers who attained prominence and were designated as senior advocates are sought to be ignored— something which has grown over a period of time.
“We say the pleadings are reckless because it has sought to be made out as if the legal profession in India has long been feudalistic and a monopoly of certain higher castes and certain families. In fact, in the post-liberalisation period, it is alleged that lawyers no longer come to be known for their knowledge, values and erudition but for the manifestation of wealth and the proximity to the Bench,” the Bench underscored.
Nedumpara argued that the designation as senior advocates is insignia of superior status and title and promising lawyers should not undertake the ignominy of applying for designation.
He added that the designation had created a class of advocates with special rights, and the same had been seen as a result only for kith and kin of judges, senior advocates, politicians, ministers, etc., resulting in the legal industry being monopolised by a small group of designated advocates, leaving the vast majority of meritorious law practitioners as ordinary plebeians receiving discriminatory treatment.
Responding to the allegations, the Bench observed that there was a vast number of first-generation lawyers who attained prominence and were designated as senior advocates which the petitioner has sought to ignore, and the number of such advocates has been growing over time.
Click here to read the Judgment.
