THE Chief Justice of India (CJI) Monday said he would take up the issue of senior designation soon hinted at “some development” that might also take place within a week or two.
CJI NV Ramana was responding to senior advocate Indira Jaising when the latter mentioned two of her applications concerning the strict implementation of the Supreme Court’s 2017 judgment laying down parameters and procedures to be followed by the apex court and the high courts while conferring the senior gown on advocates.
“It is a judgment which requires to be worked out by the court. This issue has been hanging fire for very long”, Jaising pointed out.
The CJI, in response, said there were some problems with the senior designation in various courts. The Supreme Court Bar Association(SCBA) had also requested for senior designations.
“I want to take it up soon”, CJI Ramana said, adding that the matter would require to be heard by a three-judge bench
Stating that there were practical difficulties currently in hearing the matter, he said senior advocate Soli Sorabjee who was a “member of the Committee for Designation of Senior Advocate at Supreme Court who passed away earlier this year needed to be replaced.
The Supreme Court on September 4, 2019, issued notice to its own Secretary-General on a plea filed by Jaising seeking a direction to initiate the process of designating senior advocates pursuant to the Court’s direction issued in 2017. The plea also urged that the exercise be conducted via virtual mode in a manner similar to virtual court hearings. However, the matter has not been listed since then.
The plea contended that the Supreme Court registry ought to have initiated the process of designation in January 2019, July 2019, January 2020 and July 2020. However, no invitations for applications for senior advocate designations had been issued by the court in the last four windows. In fact, the process of inviting applications for designations had come to a standstill after August 6, 2018.
Last month, Jaising moved another application aggrieved by the frequent restoring of the secret ballots by the high courts in designating senior advocates.
“When every candidate is put to vote and that too by secret ballot with no discussion, it is obvious that the decision to designate is not based on the merit of the candidate but on the personal preferences of the judges who vote in favour of or against a candidate”, Jaising contended. She thus sought a clarification from the top court of its 2017 judgment that voting as per the judgment is prescribed “only” when “unavoidable”. It is not clear why every candidate is to be voted upon, if there is no “unavoidable” occasion.
There are several petitions pending in different high courts about the rules framed in compliance with the 2017 judgment or challenging the senior designation made by those high courts.
