Calcutta High Court has "very strongly requested" the committee for designation of senior advocates not to recommend any new name till disposal of a petition challenging its provisions.
The committee comprises the Chief Justice of the high court, two senior-most judges, the state Advocate General and an eminent lawyer chosen by them.
"The committee for designation of senior advocates is very strongly requested by this court not to take any further steps in making any further recommendation of names for designation as senior advocates," a bench comprising justices I P Mukerji and Amrita Sinha said Wednesday while passing an interim order on a petition.
Concluding the oral hearing in the petition, the bench directed that written submissions, if any, may be filed by the parties by January 21.
On a petition by an advocate, the division bench directed the registry/secretariat of the court not to take any step for placing three names, recommended by the committee for being designated as senior advocates, with the Acting Chief Justice for obtaining approval in a Full Court.
The Calcutta High Court is currently headed by an Acting Chief Justice.
The division bench said the panel ought not to have made recommendations for designation of senior advocate status to lawyers during pendancy of the petition.
Stating that it had not passed any interim order during the hearing of the petition, the bench said, "We only observed that our Committee for Designation of Senior Advocates comprised very senior judges and they knew what to do in the circumstances, when serious questions regarding recommendation of names for appointment of senior advocates were subjudice."
"But it has been brought to our notice that during the continuance of hearing of this application, at least three out of 30 candidates were recommended by the Committee for being appointed as senior advocates, subject to approval by the Full Court," the bench said.
"This ought not to have been done," it observed.
The division bench noted that the petitioner has been able to make out a most arguable case.
"He has also been able to raise very substantial questions to be tried," it observed.
Petitioner Debasish Roy, a practising advocate, sought an order directing the High Court at Calcutta (Appellate Side) to recall its notification dated July 3, 2018, published in the Kolkata Gazette on July 12, 2018 vide which the guidelines for designating senior advocate were notified.
The petitioner also sought recall of its July 25 notification, vide which, Roy claimed, applications were invited from only those advocates who are regularly practising before the High Court at Calcutta for being designated as senior advocates.
Roy claimed that the guidelines are violative of Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution, claiming that these discriminate between the advocates practising at the High Court of Calcutta and the advocates practising at the trial courts.
He claimed that the guidelines arbitrarily prescribe for a relaxation of 10 per cent in points (out of 100) for deserving candidates without providing for what shall amount to be a deserving candidate, thus, rendering the said guidelines as vague.
The petitioner also claimed that the guidelines are completely incongruous with the law laid down by the apex court in Indira Jaising case, and inconsistent with the Supreme Court Guidelines to Regulate Conferment of Designation of Senior Advocates, 2018.
Appearing for the High Court Administration, senior advocate Joydeep Kar argued that the committee came into existence further to the guidelines and that there is no violation of any principle laid down in the Indira Jaising case.
"There has not been any injustice to any candidate practising in the subordinate courts in the matter of consideration of their candidature for being designated as senior advocates," Kar told the division bench.
He submitted that the guidelines in no way prevented or precluded them from being recommended for such designation.
He also argued that the power to relax norms must be vested in the committee, claiming that this provision enabled them to do justice in a proper case.
Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content
