New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday said that an individual apex court or HC judge cannot recommend any advocate for “senior” designation.
“The scheme of Sub-section (2) of Section 16 (of the Advocates Act, 1961) indicates that an individual Judge of the Supreme Court or the High Court, as the case may be, cannot recommend any Advocate for designation as the decision is a collective decision of the Full Court,” said a bench presided over by Justice Abhay S. Oka.
The Bench, also comprising Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and SVN Bhatti, added that even if an advocate deserving of a designation does not apply for designation, on the basis of the discussion in the house, the Full Court can always recommend his designation, subject to his consent. “For that purpose, the recommendation in writing of an individual Judge is not warranted,” clarified the apex court.
In its detailed judgment, the Justice Oka-led Bench said that the practice of advocates making applications for the grant of designation can continue as the act of making an application can be treated as consent of the advocates concerned for “senior” designation. It clarified that the Full Court may consider and confer designation without an application in a deserving case. Further, the top court opined discontinuation of point-based assessment by the Permanent Committee for the “senior” designation of advocates.
The apex court said, “The applications of all candidates found to be eligible by the Permanent Secretariat, along with relevant documents submitted by the applicants, shall be placed before the Full House. An endeavour can always be made to arrive at a consensus. However, if a consensus on the designation of Advocates is not arrived at, the decision-making must be by a democratic method of voting.”
However, the Justice Oka-led Bench left it to the High Courts to take a call as to whether, in a given case, there should be a secret ballot.
The Supreme Court clarified that the processes already initiated on the basis of earlier apex court decisions will continue to be governed will the said decisions, but new applications shall not be considered unless there is a proper regime of Rules framed by the High Courts.
Opining that at least one exercise of “senior” designation should be undertaken every calendar year, the apex court stressed the need to improve the regime of designation by periodical reviews by the Supreme Court and the respective High Courts.
(IANS)
