Supreme Court Seeks Records Of 2021 Senior Designations From Punjab & Haryana HC On Lawyers' Challenge

The Supreme Court on Tuesday called for the records from the Punjab and Haryana High Court in relation to the senior designation conferred to 19 advocates last year.

A Bench comprising Justice UU Lalit, Justice Ravindra Bhat and Justice PS Narasimha was considering a writ petition filed by three advocates challenging the senior designation process followed by the High Court.  

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that judges should have recused from the meeting if their relataives were under consideration. There are three serving judges who should have recused, Singh submitted.

In response to Singh's submission that the lawyers were interviewed only for 30 seconds, Justice Lalit observed, "Those who practice before us, we know the worth of them as counsels. So at times from the name on the file, judges aren't able to place that person. But when they appear in an interview everything becomes clear. It is not that you're deciding their fate in that 30 seconds interview".

Justice Lalit further said, "At times you feel decision should've gone the other way, so there has to be element of transparency, and that transparency can be assured of when you lay down the objective criteria. Go by that objective criteria, but there has to be an element reserved for the Full Court"

Justice Lalit added that some leeway should be given to the Full Court. "When it came to designation by this court a few years back, we designated 40 odd counsels, we took a yardstick of anyone 50 and above. Below 50 also we designated a second lot. Its not that if you've less than 50 you're out of reckoning. Give that leeway", Justice Lalit said.

The present writ petition filed by three advocates has argued the designation by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in May 2021 was violative of Rules 9 to 11 of the Rules framed by the High Court for senior designation and the Supreme Court's judgement in Indira Jaising's case in 2017.

The petition has been filed by Advocates Amar Vivek Aggarwal, Krishan Kumar Gupta, and Harbhajan Singh Dhandi, through Advocate Malak Manish Bhatt.

The petition had also sought quashing of the impugned notification dated 28.05.2021 and the impugned list dated 24-05-2021 through which the advocates were conferred senior designation. However the prayer was withdrawn on Tuesday by the petitioners.

The petitioners are therefore seeking the following reliefs:

• Directions to produce the complete records of the case and the same be ordered to be supplied / placed in safe custody and be preserved all through the pendency of the present Writ Petition.
• Directions to strictly adhere to the directions of the Supreme Court, and relevant rules in redrawing and re-working out the list of advocates for senior designation in pursuance of relevant rules and strictly on inter-se merit having been arrived in accordance with the criteria laid down by Supreme court and rules framed on the basis of the marks / grades
• Directions to redraw the same from the stage of receipt of applications and carry out the entire process afresh, strictly in terms of the Directions of Supreme Court and the Rules 9, 10 and 11.

According to the petitioners, the High Court not only violated the mandatory and binding directions of Supreme Court and Rules 9 to 11, as having advertised a criteria of marks, the final lists or recommendations were drawn illegally and not as per the marks / ranking and relative merit.

Further it has been argued that the respondents never placed the entire result of 112 candidates before Full Court for approval and the full court wrongly and illegally voted thereon.

The petition has stated that no 'Senior Designations' of counsels have taken place in Punjab and Haryana High Court since 2014 onwards. In pursuance of Indira Jaising's judgement in 2017, rules were framed and applications were invited.

It has been submitted that 112 applications were received but no action whatsoever was taken until recently, when all of a sudden on 19-05-2021, 112 applicants were surprisingly called physically to High Court premises. Further, the Permanent committee sat online during such interactions barely giving even a minute's time to each of the 112 candidates

The petition has stated that on 25-05-2021, a list of 27 recommended candidates was in circulation, against which representations were filed before the Full court contending, that the results of 112 candidates ought to have been declared on weighted criteria, and the Full court could not be convened only to "approve 27 recommendees', under Rule 10, wherein, the Committee is supposed to place the data of all 112 candidates including recommendees "for approval of the Full Court'.

According to the petitioners, the data, synopsis and brief note about remaining 85 candidates was not placed before the Full court, contrary to mandate of Rule 10 and the Full Court resorted to secret voting on list of 27 and approved only 18 names.

The petitioners have argued that the fate of 85 candidates, some of them with reasonable, consistent and good practice of 40 years, many of whom have been Additional Advocate Generals in the past and who have been waiting for last 07 years for senior designation, was summarily decided in a matter of 07 days in utter violation of Rules 9 to 11.

Case Title: Amar Vivek Aggarwal & Ors vs High Court Of Punjab and Haryana & Ors|WP(C) 687/2021

Click Here To Read/Download Order