It’s a classic case of Supreme Court versus Supreme Court. In a matter relating to designation as senior advocates, a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India TS Thakur, which is hearing a PIl on the same issue, received an affidavit on behalf of the Supreme Court Registrar telling him to stay off the matter as designation of seniors is an administrative matter over which the judges cannot sit in review.
The affidavit has created an interesting situation for the CJI who will have to decide whether he needs to go with the petitioners before him or the institution which he heads. The petitioner in this case, senior advocate Indira Jaising too has not taken this affidavit kindly as she intends to file a counter response to know at whose instruction such a response was filed in the case.
The affidavit filed by Nisha Bhardwaj, Registrar of the Supreme Court of India said, “The decision o the Full Court of the Supreme Court to confer or not to confer senior designation on any Advocate is a decision taken on the administrative side of this Court and, therefore, cannot be a subject matter of judicial review”.
Since February 11, 2014, the full strength of the Supreme Court judges decides who is to be made a Senior Advocate by a secret ballot. Jaising’s petition wanted to bring transparency into this system after she raised doubts over certain recent designations where lawyers who had no standing at the bar made it to the list of Senior Advocates while others who were professionally competent and enjoyed good reputation at the Bar lost out in the race.
Realising the seriousness of the matter, the Court even sought assistance of the Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi on behalf of the Centre and Supreme Court Bar Association President Dushyant Dave. In the past, the A-G after consulting the Bar representatives proposed suggestions to ensure that the process of choosing a Senior Advocate does not attract suspicion.
The affidavit by the Supreme Court also dismissed the apprehensions of the petitioner on recent designations as “hearsay” and in “bad taste”. Normally, Courts on the judicial side would not interfere or probe into the merits of exercise of discretion by an authority or institution as it is not a forum to hear appeals from the decisions of the authority,” said the affidavit.
As per Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act 1961, both Supreme Court and High Courts have administrative powers to designate Senior Advocates. But the process adopted by Courts can differ. For instance, High Courts of Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai and Allahabad employ secret ballot similar to Supreme Court. Even a judge can propose a candidate. But in order for the candidate to be selected it must be certified by four other judges before being put to vote before the Full Bench. Selection is based on professional integrity, competence, and reputation at the bar and preferably having 20 years standing in the profession.