Practice Of Conferring Senior Designation On Advocates Not Arbitrary Or Unreasonable : Supreme Court Rejects Challenge

The Supreme Court on Monday (October 16) upheld the practice of designating senior advocates, affirming the constitutional validity of Sections 16 and 23(5) of the Advocates Act, 1961. 

Section 16 of the Advocates Act says, "there shall be two classes of advocates, namely, senior advocates and other advocates" and says that the Supreme Court and the High Courts can confer senior designation. Section 23 (5) prescribes that senior advocates shall have pre-audience over other lawyers and their right of pre-audience inter se shall be determined by their respective seniority.

The Court held that the mechanism of conferring senior designation on advocates was not arbitrary or artificial. It said that the classification of advocates as senior and non-senior advocates was not unreasonable and was based on standardised merit. It also noted that the Court has laid down elaborate guidelines to streamline the process of senior designation in the judgment in the case Indira Jaising v. Union of India.

"The classification of advocates under Section 16 of the said Act is a tangible difference established by the practice advocates have over decades, and the Court has devised a discernible and transparent mechanism to adjudicate the seniority of advocates in the profession."

"The seniority of advocates is premised on a standardised metric of merit aimed at forwarding the standards of the profession. Thus, the classification of advocates and the mechanism to grant seniority to advocates is not based on any arbitrary, artificial or evasive grounds. Such a classification is a creation of the legislature, and there is a general presumption of constitutionality, and the burden is on the petitioners to show that there is a clear transgression of the constitutional principles – something which they have miserably failed to discharge."

The bench also dismissed the allegations of the petitioners that the senior designation system resulted in unfairness to junior members. A large number of first generation lawyers have made their mark and have also secured senior designation, Supreme Court observed.

"If one may say, the indulgence of the junior members of the bar is in one sense more than the senior members of the bar because it is also a part of the duty of the bench to help in the evolution of the bar," the bench stated in the judgment.

This verdict was delivered by a bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sudhanshu Dhulia, and CT Ravikumar in a public interest litigation (PIL) petition filed by Advocate Mathews J Nedumpara and others contesting the practice of designating advocates as 'senior' under Sections 16 and 23(5) of the Advocates Act, 1961.

While dismissing the petition, the bench also made scathing critical remarks against the petitioner by terming the petition  a 'misadventure' -

"The writ petition is a misadventure likely of petitioner number 1 in continuation of some of his past misadventures," the bench said. It added that the judgments and orders passed in contempt cases against Nedumpara in the past "do not seem to have any salutary or counselling effect on petitioner number 1 for any self introspection, but he has carried on with his vilification campaign against all and sundry.."

Nedumpara argued that this distinction favoured a segment of privileged lawyers, leading to a monopolisation of the legal domain by those with connections to influential figures such as judges, senior advocates, politicians, and ministers. The court had reserved its verdict on October 4 after the oral arguments were concluded.

The petition raised concerns over the creation of an exclusive class of advocates, likening the senior designation to the historical concept of Queen's Counsel in 18th century England, and contended that such a system ultimately impeded equitable treatment for the majority of litigants who could not afford the services of a senior advocate. While arguing that a vast majority of 'meritorious' law practitioners are left behind due to this system, Nedumpara cited his own example, saying that he had initially given up profession after being told that only those with a 'godfather' would have a future. Nedumpara further contended that the current guidelines, including those established in the wake of the 2018 judgement in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court, gave rise to an infringement of Article 14 of the Constitution. The petition states -

“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 Article 14 and the right to practice any profession under Article 19, as well as the right to life under Article 21.”

In response, during the hearing, Justice Kaul highlighted the underlying purpose of Section 16, emphasising that the designation of a senior advocate hinged on established norms and abilities to facilitate the court proceedings. The judge also contested Nedumpara's perception that senior advocates received special privileges, stating that, in practice, junior lawyers were often heard with more patience.