The designation of senior advocates cannot be termed 'bad in law' and it does not violate Article 14 of Constitution, Attorney General K K Venugopal told the Supreme Court today.
The top law officer told a three-judge bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi, R F Nariman and Navin Sinha that the classification between lawyers is being done on the basis of various parameters.
"The classification between lawyers does not violate Article 14 of Constitution. It is done by the courts on the basis of broad parameters like standing at bar, knowledge of law, integrity. This classification helps a litigant to brief a particular counsel," Venugopal said while arguing in favour of the designation of Senior Advocates.
He said that designation was not only for monetary benefits, but helps a litigant to make an informed choice.
Senior advocates incidentally make monetary benefits and expand their practice but they also sacrifice various benefits which they used to get while being an advocate, he said.
"If Senior designations for advocates is held to be bad in law, then even the system of Advocate on Records would have to be held to be bad. They (senior advocates) cannot deal directly with the client. They even cannot hold the office of Advocate of Records in Supreme Court," the AG said.
At the outset, the Gujarat High Court Bar Association also joined the arguments against the practice of designating senior advocates, saying none of the pre-constitutional laws had a division of laywers in senior and junior categories.
"This practice was started by Bombay Bar Association and the person conferred with the senior designation used to have a standing of 10 years in bar. The Association used to give the designation after a voluntary undertaking from a lawyer that he will not take instructions from the client," advocate Asim Pandaya appearing for Gujarat HC Bar Association said.
He said it is not in the inherent powers of courts to confer the senior designation and is purely derived from section 16 of Advocates Act. "Except in Bombay Bar Association the practice was not prevalent in any parts of country," Pandaya said.
He termed the conferment of senior designation as discriminatory and said that junior lawyers who may have degrees of LLD or LLM and have done good work in the field may not be in good books of judges who confer the designation.
"There is no rationale behind the classification and junior lawyers are not benefitted with the system. Reasonable classification is permitted but there should be a rational objective. And the classification should have a nexus to the object sought to be achieved," Pandaya said.
Mathews Nedumpara, arguing on behalf of the National Lawyers' Campaign for Judicial Transparency and Reforms, also opposed the practice of conferment of senior designation by courts.
The bench, after hearing the arguments, reserved its verdict.
The apex court had in March referred a PIL filed by senior lawyer Indira Jaising to a larger three-judge bench. It had sought transparency and overhauling in the "opaque system" of designating lawyers as senior advocates, terming it as discriminatory.
Jaising had said that current procedure was discriminatory and should be discarded in favour of a more transparent system.
"There should be deemed designation for law officers and retired judges as it is believed that senior advocates get preferential treatment in the court. The new system should consider various aspects, including integrity, pro bono work, expertise in specialised areas of law among other," she had said.
The senior lawyer had argued that in the United States, there are no senior or junior tags on lawyers and the practice was prevalent only in Commonwealth nations.
On January 2, the apex court had decided to hear afresh a plea seeking transparency and overhauling in the "opaque system" of designating lawyers as senior advocates.
The apex court had also tagged with it a petition pending in the Delhi High Court which challenged the provisions of the Advocates Act relating to the designation of lawyers as senior advocates.
It had said that after the verdict in the matter was reserved, some lawyers had approached the apex court to intervene in the case and submitted that all have not been given a proper hearing on the issue.
The petition pending in the high court challenges the constitutional validity of sections 16 and 23(5) of the Advocates Act, 1961 which provide the statutory basis for designation of lawyers as senior advocates.
The court had noted in its order that after it had reserved the judgement, an application was filed seeking recall of its October 21 last year order.
Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content
