Supreme Court Dismisses Advocate's Plea Challenging Exclusion From Delhi HC Senior Designations

The Supreme Court, on Thursday, dismissed the plea of an Advocate challenging the procedure adopted by Delhi High Court while designating 55 advocates as Senior Advocates out of total of 237 applicants. The matter was heard by a bench comprising Chief Justice U.U. Lalit and Justice Bela M. Trivedi. The petitioner-in-person, Advocate Harvinder Chowdhury submitted that she was aggrieved by the not being appointed as a Senior Advocate despite being fit for the role.

She submitted that despite directions being given by the judgement in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court Of India (2017), the procedure followed for the designations had not been followed. While establishing her candidature for the designation of a senior advocate, the petitioner submitted–

"The Indira Jaising case says that if any publication is done...I have published more than 10. It says you should have personality for law. I have had, I did clear my AOR exam, did my masters. It is misconstrued by the High Court. I have taken just Rs. 10,000 for cases. I lost my husband 26 years ago and did masters. I see whether litigant leaves court happily. This part of my personality has been ignored."

She aIso stated that she had covered women's related problems, represented over 2 lakh farmers and even represented the government in various cases. She stated that she had also raised her daughter as a doctor on her own. Despite the same, she had not been designated a senior advocate. However, the bench remained unconvinced. The CJI-led bench dictated the order which reads as follows–

"We have heard Ms. Harvinder Chowdhury, appearing in person. The instant petition filed under Article 32 takes exception to the procedure adopted while designating 55 advocates as Senior Advocates out of a total of 237 applicants. Ms. Harvinder Chowdhury submits inter alia–

a) That the documents upended to her application seeking consideration of her case did make out the case for her designation;

b) That the committee was not properly constituted;

c) The panel gave less time for interview and hardly one or two questions were put.

Having gone through this submission, we see no reason to interfere."

Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

CASE TITLE: Harvinder Chowdhury v SCI And Ors. WP(C) No. 744/2021

Click Here To Read/Download Order