MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, practicing Advocates, have filed the present writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for a declaration that the designation of Advocates as Senior Advocates under Ss. 16 and 23(5) of the Advocates Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') as well as under Rule 2 of Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, creating a special class of Advocates with special rights, privileges and status not available to ordinary Advocates is unconstitutional being violative of the mandate of equality under Artilce 14 and Right to Practice any Profession under Article 19 as well as Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is their say that such designation has created a class of Advocates with special rights, and the same has 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 plebians receiving discriminatory treatment.

(2.) We may notice that it is contended that this Court in Indira Jaisingh vs. Supreme Court of India, Through Secretary General & Ors,(2017) 9 SCC 766 upheld the vires of the said Act providing for the designation of Advocates as Senior Advocates and illegally providing guidelines for such designation, amounting to judicial legislation. We may here add that there have been further modifications and formulations for designation by a subsequent judgment rendered in Indira Jaisingh vs. Supreme Court of India, Through Secretary General & Ors.,(2023) 8 SCC 1 in pursuance to the liberty reserved in the aforesaid judgment.

(3.) The say of petitioner no.1 is that we cannot borrow the concept from Roman Law or England, which was feudal in character, as, in England, the concept of Queen's Counsel representing the crown came into existence in the 18th Century. At the time when the Constitution came into existence, there were admittedly different categories of legal practitioners with varying degrees of the right to practice - Mukhtiyars, Vakils and Pleaders practiced in the Muffasil Courts, while in High Courts, Bar at Laws, Advocates and Solicitors practiced. The said Act was brought into existence to streamline the process of working of the legal system. Petitioner no.1, while lauding the objective behind the said Act, seeks to challenge the provisions of Ss. 16 and 23(5) of the said Act, which is stated to have been 'unwittingly' incorporated and is stated to be destroying the laudable purpose of the said Act, i.e., a single unified Bar for the entire republic of India.