Bombay High Court Rejects Plea for Senior Advocate Designation

Introduction

In a recent ruling, the Bombay High Court dismissed a plea filed by Manjeet Kaur, a woman advocate, seeking senior designation after completing 10 years of practice. The court examined the matter through the lens of Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961, and the fundamental duties outlined under Article 51A of the Constitution.

Advocate’s Argument

Kaur argued that her 10 years of practice entitled her to be designated as a senior advocate. She based her claim on her legal expertise, experience, and the fundamental duty for authorities to ensure equality. Kaur highlighted that her practice and qualifications fulfilled the requirements under Section 16 of the Advocates Act, which allows for the designation of senior advocates based on their standing and knowledge of the law.

She further invoked Article 51A, asserting that she could not be treated unequally and that it was the duty of the authorities to ensure equal treatment. This, she argued, supported her claim to senior designation, which she believed was a matter of fulfilling constitutional obligations.

Court's Rationale

However, the court rejected her plea, emphasizing that the power to designate an advocate as "Senior Advocate" is solely vested in the High Court. Referring to the landmark Indira Jaising case, the court underscored that the guidelines established by the Supreme Court govern the process of designating senior advocates. These guidelines have been further refined in subsequent judgments, including the 2023 ruling, and set clear procedural requirements for such designations.

The bench pointed out that the petitioner had not followed the necessary procedures outlined in the guidelines. The court stated that only a full court of the High Court, following due process, could confer the status of a senior advocate. Since Kaur had not adhered to the required protocol, her plea could not be entertained.

Indira Jaising Case Precedent

The Indira Jaising case, which was pivotal to the court’s ruling, set stringent guidelines for the conferment of senior advocate status. In 2017, the Supreme Court laid down the framework for evaluating advocates' applications based on their legal acumen, contributions to the legal community, and standing within the Bar. This decision was revisited in 2023, reinforcing the need for strict adherence to the procedures for senior designation.

The court reiterated that designating a senior advocate is not an automatic right based on years of practice, but a discretionary power that involves rigorous evaluation.

Conclusion

Ultimately, the Bombay High Court dismissed Manjeet Kaur's plea, affirming that the process for designating senior advocates must strictly follow the guidelines set forth by the Supreme Court. Kaur's reliance on her years of practice and constitutional arguments were insufficient to bypass the established procedures. This ruling reinforces the structured nature of senior advocate designations, ensuring that only those who meet all procedural requirements are conferred this esteemed status.

Court Practice Community

WhatsApp Group Invite

Join WhatsApp Community