236 Applications For Senior Designation Pending: Allahabad HC Observes While Dismissing Challenge To 2019 Senior Designations

While dismissing challenge to 2019 Senior Designations conferred by the Allahabad High Court on various advocates, the bench comprising of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh observed that 236 applications for senior designation are pending before the High Court which are to be processed.

Observing that even though Supreme Court has held that Senior Designations should be conferred at least once a year, in the Allahabad High Court the same had not been done since 2019.

“At present, there are 26170 advocates registered as AOR at Prayagraj and 15300 advocates registered as AOR at Lucknow, with this Court. In that background, about 236 applications are described to have been made to the Permanent Committee for conferment of the distinction as Senior Advocate. Those are pending consideration,” observed the Court.

Petitioner, Advocate Vishnu Bihari Tiwari, filed a writ petition challenging the senior Designation conferred upon Advocates of the Allahabad High Court in 2019 on grounds that the Permanent Committee did not send the assessment report of the candidates below cut off marks to the Full Court for interview. It was also pleaded that the Committee erred in not disclosing individual marks of the applicants as well as in fixing the cut off marks.

The Court observed that under Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961, Senior Designation is a 'distinction' conferred by the High Court or the Supreme Court based on its subjection opinion of the advocate's ability and standing at the Bar or special knowledge or experience in law.

“Conferment of designation as a distinction may never be equated with selection to a post or office of profit. It is the highest and the only distinction that the higher Courts confer on the most deserving member/s of the bar. The considerations on which such distinction arises, are governed by statute i.e. Section 16 of the Act. Thus, the designation as a Senior Advocate may not be conferred on any advocate except one who may qualify the strict test of Section 16(2) of the Act,” held the bench headed by Justice Singh.

In Indira Jaising Vs. Supreme Court of India & Anr. (2017) the Supreme Court laid down the procedure for conferring senior designations on advocates along with the point based format for assessment. Subsequently, the Allahabad High Court (Amendment) Rules, 2018 were enforced which substituted the then existing 'The Designation of Senior Advocate Rules, 1999' with 'The Designation of Senior Advocate Rules, 2018.'

The Court observed that “no format is prescribed or provided by the Rules for submission of the Assessment Report by the Permanent Committee to the Full Court in terms of Rule 6 (6) of the Rules.”

In 2019, when after the applications for Senior Designation were sought, the Permanent Committee headed by the then Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court resolved that advocates who obtain 45 points or more out of 75 points shall only be considered to be eligible as such for their nomination for designation as Senior Advocate.

Out of the 78 names send to the Full Court, 75 were granted Senior Designation. While one applicant was later granted the Designation, the other two applications were rejected. The Court observed that though the petitioner challenged the resolution of the Full Court, the same was published on the same day itself and stay application against the resolution was rejected by the Court.

The Court observed that during the pendency of the writ petition for 5 years, no Senior Designations had been conferred by the High Court. Meanwhile, the Court observed that the Apex Court passed its judgment in Ms. Indira Jaising Vs. Supreme Court of India (2023) wherein it was held that the Senior Designation is an honour conferred upon an advocate and therefore, voting by secret ballot must be an exception. Regarding the prayer to release cut-off marks in advance, it was observed that the same could only be done based on the number of applicants as the honour of designation could only be conferred on limited number of successful applicants in one go.

Amongst other things, the Apex Court also observed that

“As we have streamlined the process by restricting the number of interviews in the context of number of candidates to be designated, we believe a meaningful exercise can be carried out. Thus, we are not inclined either to do away with or to reduce the marks assigned under this category, especially in view of the fine-tuning we have done by the present order to make this exercise more meaningful.”

The bench headed by Justice Singh observed that the judgments of the Supreme Court in Indira Jaising (2017) sought to unify the parameters for senior designation across High Courts and Supreme Court to bring objective uniformity in the conferment of the designation under Section 16 of the Advocates Act. It was held that the powers of the High Court to frame their own rules under Article 225 of the Constitution remained untouched. It was observed that the Supreme Court gave positive directions to the High Courts to modify its guidelines suitably even though the directions given were not Model Rules which were to be adopted by the High Courts.

The Court held that the judgment in Indira Jaising (2017) is binding law as the framework/guideline/norms prescribed by the Supreme Court by way of its judgments overrides statutory rules.

The Court further added that “the said decision deliberately chose not to declare invalid - any of then existing Rules framed by any of the High Courts (framed under Article 225 of the Constitution of India), and laid down general norms and guidelines to be followed by the Supreme Court and all High Courts - to bring uniformity in the procedure of designation of Senior Advocates, the alleged deviation and departures from those norms and guidelines may only expose the actions performed by the statutory Rules against to the test of arbitrariness and discrimination pervading such action.”

The Court held that the decision of the Permanent Committee to forward only selected applications to the Full Court was in accordance with the decision in Indira Jaising (2017) as it is permitted to frame such rules/ criteria to “clear”/recommend only such applicants to the Full Court, as it may consider fit.

It was held that though designations could not have been conferred without granting interviews to the shortlisted candidates, the suo moto powers of the High Court and Supreme Court to grant designation have been preserved in Indira Jaising (2023). Therefore, it was held that senior designations conferred without taking interviews could only have been challenged by the short-listed candidates only, and not by others. Since the petitioners were never shortlisted based on their cut-off marks, they could not challenge the Senior Designations conferred on this ground.

The Court held that the requirement for interview was not mandatory but discretionary in nature.

“Conduct of interview may not vest any right on any applicant to be necessarily considered by the Full Court for the purpose of conferment of distinction of Senior Advocate. However, we make it plain that that exercise may fall in the exclusive discretion and domain of the Permanent Committee.”

Dismissing the petition, the Court observed that petitioners could not have challenged the designation based on “unsubstantiated doubts, suspicions or presumptions or assumed bias.” It was held that the petitioner had a right to the reconsidered for Senior Designation later on.

Case Title: Vishnu Behari Tewari v. The High Court Judicature At Allahabad And 2 Others [WRIT - C No. - 17736 of 2019]

Click Here To Read/Download Order