2000 (5) TMI 1090 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the writ petition and locus standi of the petitioners.
2. Authority of the High Court to frame the "Designation of Senior Advocate Rules, 1999" under Section 34(1) of the Advocates Act.
3. Validity of Rule 3(B) of the Rules in light of Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act.
4. Whether the procedure under the impugned Rules excludes advocates practicing in District Courts or Tribunals from being designated as senior advocates.
5. Reliefs to which the petitioners are entitled.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Writ Petition and Locus Standi of the Petitioners:
The court examined the locus standi of the petitioners, who are advocates and an association of advocates, to file the writ petition. The petitioners questioned the validity of the amended rules concerning the designation of senior advocates. The court referred to the landmark judgment in S.P. Gupta v. President of India, emphasizing that practicing lawyers have a vital interest in the independence of the judiciary and can challenge actions impairing it. The court concluded that the petitioners had sufficient locus standi to maintain the writ petition, as they were not acting for personal gain or any oblique motive but were genuinely interested in the matter.

2. Authority of the High Court to Frame the "Designation of Senior Advocate Rules, 1999" under Section 34(1) of the Advocates Act:
The court addressed whether the High Court had the authority to frame the impugned rules under Section 34(1) of the Advocates Act. The petitioners argued that Section 34(1) did not authorize the High Court to frame such rules. However, the court held that the High Court had the authority under Section 34(1) read with Section 16(2) of the Act to frame rules for designating senior advocates. It was noted that the designation of senior advocates affects their right to practice, and thus, the High Court could regulate this through rules.

3. Validity of Rule 3(B) of the Rules in Light of Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act:
The petitioners challenged Rule 3(B), which allowed a Screening Committee to disapprove recommendations for senior advocate designation. The court found that the function of designating senior advocates under Section 16(2) is a statutory function that should be performed by the Full Court and not delegated to a smaller committee. The court held that the part of Rule 3(B) allowing the Screening Committee to disapprove recommendations was ultra vires and should be deleted. The Screening Committee could still perform preliminary screening, but the final decision must rest with the Full Court.

4. Whether the Procedure under the Impugned Rules Excludes Advocates Practicing in District Courts or Tribunals from Being Designated as Senior Advocates:
The court examined whether the impugned rules excluded advocates practicing in District Courts or Tribunals. It was found that the definition of 'advocate' in the rules included all advocates entered in the roll under the Advocates Act, irrespective of their place of practice. Therefore, the rules did not exclude advocates practicing in District Courts or Tribunals. However, the court suggested that the High Court might consider amending the rules to explicitly include a procedure for considering advocates from District Courts and Tribunals.

5. Reliefs to Which the Petitioners are Entitled:
Given that the Full Court had already considered the recommendations and declared the results, the court directed that the results be given effect without delay. Additionally, the court declared the words "if it is not disapproved by the Committee" in Rule 3(B) as ultra vires and directed their deletion from the rule.

Conclusion:
The writ petition was allowed with the following directions:
1. The words "if it is not disapproved by the Committee" in Rule 3(B) were deleted as ultra vires.
2. The results declared by the Full Court on April 9, 2000, were to be given effect immediately.
3. The court suggested amending the rules to include a procedure for considering advocates from District Courts and Tribunals.