ASOK PANDE Vs. ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, a practising advocate, who professes to be a seeker of justice and who claims to have fought legal battles involving public issues of importance and has excelled in the profession, has come forward praying for repairing the damage caused due to the promulgation of rules regulating the designation of a distinction, that of a Senior Advocate, which according to him is bestowing of an honour, and thus the High Court should not cage itself within impermissible parameters of law so as to frustrate the very purpose of this choice. Rules, according to him, should not put shackles on the free expression of opinion by the Full Court so as to narrow down the objective of a true search and identification of exceptional legal talent. The process of selection should be by way of direct recognition and not stultified through an advisory opinion of a body of lesser numbers that has no statutory authorization.

(2.) SUBJECTIVITY in choice of such conferment according to him should not prevail to an extent that those like the petitioner, who by their dint of hard labour and devotion have made a place for themselves in the profession worthy of timely recognition, should be left ignored, and on the other hand undeserving and calculative brains should reap honours at the hands of sheer whimsical franchise through a short cut method of screening by a minuscule number of Judges. He therefore by exercising his right of freedom of speech and expression trumpets a caution.

(3.) THERE can be hardly a dispute with the proposition advanced by Sri Pande that a process for conferring a distinction should be of the utmost careful selection to avoid any pointing of fingers and no rule that diminishes such exercise should serve as a statutory block while granting clearance, that too by Judges who are mortals but are supposed to discharge divine duties. We would only supplement this apprehension and Mr. Pande's discomfort by saying that lofty and tall claims through self promotion, open canvassing and advertisement are not the methods through which such distinction can be achieved. A craving or a desire is different from a true and genuine ambition, because a bona fide and honest pursuit with pure devotion is a virtue that comes as a natural attribute to a real disciple of the profession. To be simply desirous without dedication, and with the aid of stilts and artificial crutches, one can acquire wealth and can become affluent, but that would not gather respect or distinction. One can be widely known by his infamous demeanors but that would be an identity inviting avoidance by society and not a mark for conferring distinction. The mere amassing of briefs and sheer quantity of cases handled is no measure of professional achievement for conferment of a distinction. This can be earned only through qualitative delivery and real service to a cause to achieve the ends of justice. This may occur with the handling of a single complex dispute that would weigh against a hundred routine matters.