Scribd
Upload
32 views3 pages

SC57

Uploaded by

kepehip295
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
32 views3 pages

SC57

Uploaded by

kepehip295
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

AABBCC

This Case Explanation includes important Laws, background of case, Facts of case, question
in matter, judgment and reference cases.

First
Important Laws covered in the case are,
 Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961
 Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961
 Section 23 of the Advocates Act, 1961
 Section 30 of the Legal Profession Act, 1966
 Section 82A(10) of the Legal Profession Act, 1966
 Section 98(1) of the Legal Profession Act, 1966
 Section 18(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962
 The Legal Practitioners Act, 2004
 The Legal Services Regulation Act, 2015
 Article 14 of Indian Constitution
 Article 15 of Indian Constitution
 Article 18 of Indian Constitution
 Article 21 of Indian Constitution
 Article 217 of Indian Constitution
 Rule 2 of order IV of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013

Second
Background of case
 This Writ Petition was filed by Ms. Indira Jaising, a Senior Advocate,
challenging the system of designation of Senior Advocates in the Supreme
Court of India.

Third
Facts of the case
 Ms. Indira Jaising, a Senior Advocate designated by the High Court of Bombay
in 1986, filed Writ Petition challenging the system of designation of Senior
Advocates in the Supreme Court of India.
 Alleging the current system as flawed, arbitrary, and unconstitutional, she
seeks the establishment of a new method for designation based on
transparent and acceptable parameters.
 The petition raises significant concerns regarding the designation of Senior
Advocates, impacting the Indian legal system profoundly, with various
individuals and associations, including the Bar Association of India, filing
intervention applications.
 The Court's directive to post the case on its website for participation from
High Courts and Bar Associations. An intervention by the Gujarat High Court
Advocates’ Association challenged the validity of Section 16 of the Advocates
Act, 1961, which empowers the designation of Senior Advocates.
 The case involves several connected writ petitions challenging the
designation guidelines across different High Courts, with various High Courts
having framed rules for the designation of Senior Advocates, adding
complexity to the case.

Fourth
question in matter
 Whether the classification of advocates into 'Senior Advocates' and
'Advocates' under Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961, violates the
principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India?
 Whether the designation of Senior Advocates, conferred by judges, gives rise
to unfair advantages and violates the right to equality?
 Whether the practice of designating Senior Advocates violates Article 18 of
the Constitution, which prohibits the conferment of titles by the state?
 Whether the current process of designation lacks transparency and
objectivity, leading to unfair advantages for Senior Advocates?
 Whether the minimum income requirement for eligibility to be designated as
a Senior Advocate is justified?

Fifth
judgment stated

 The Court held that the classification does not violate Article 14, as long as it
is based on reasonable parameters and serves the objective of enhancing the
legal system.
 The Court recognized the concerns but emphasized that the power to
designate Senior Advocates is circumscribed by the requirement of due
satisfaction and serves the objective of recognizing merit and ability.
 The Court rejected this contention, stating that the designation is a
recognition rather than a title, and does not violate Article 18.
 The Court acknowledged the need for objective criteria and transparency in
the designation process and proposed detailed guidelines to ensure fairness
and meritocracy.
 The Court favored reconsideration of the minimum income requirement and
suggested a criterion based on years of practice instead of age.

Sixth
Reference cases used in judgment
 Tata Chemicals Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs (2015) 11 SCC 628
 K.K. Parmar vs. High Court of Gujarat (2006) 5 SCC 789
 Guman Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (1971) 2 SCC 452

YYZZXX

You might also like