Abhay S Oka, C. J. - (1.) "The vital role of the lawyer depends upon his probity and professional life-style. Be it remembered that the central function of the legal profession is to promote the administration of justice. If the practice of law is thus a public utility of great implications and a monopoly is statutorily granted by the nation, it obligates the lawyer to observe scrupulously those norms which make him worthy of the confidence of the community in him as a vehicle of justicesocial justice." V.R. Krishna Iyer., J. In Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M.V. Dabholkar, 1976 2 SCC 291, para-15 1. This group of writ petitions raises many interesting issues. In a sense, these petitions are very peculiar where all the contesting parties are the members of the Bar. Though the High Court on the administrative side is a party, it is not a contesting party in that sense. In exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (1) of Section 34 read with Sub-Section (2) of Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (for short 'the Advocates Act') and in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in its Judgment dated 12th October, 2017 in the case of Smt. Indira Jaising -vs- the Supreme Court of India, 2017 9 SCC 766 the High Court of Karnataka (Designation of Senior Advocates) Rules, 2018 (for short 'the Senior Advocates Rules') were framed by the High Court of Karnataka. As per the Senior Advocates Rules, by a notification dated 16th November, 2018 (for short 'the impugned notification'), the High Court of Karnataka has designated eighteen Advocates as Senior Advocates with effect from the date of the notification. The challenge in this group of petitions is essentially to the said notification and the decision making process followed for designating the said eighteen Advocates as Senior Advocates. In substance, the challenge is to the decision making process adopted by the High Court. I. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE/PRAYERS:
(2.) Now, we may briefly refer to the facts of individual cases. Writ Petition No. 6380 of 2019: This writ petition is filed by an Advocate practicing in this Court who has put in about 44 years of practice. He appeared in person. In the writ petition, he has stated that on an earlier occasion when certain Advocates were designated, he had filed petitions challenging the earlier two notifications issued by which, sixteen Advocates were designated as Senior Advocates. Those writ petitions were dismissed. He carried the matter to the Apex Court by filing Special Leave Petitions. Though the petitions were dismissed, the Apex Court had granted liberty to him to intervene in the writ petition filed by Smt Indira Jaising in the Supreme Court of India. The petitioner has fairly pointed out that he did not apply for intervention in the said petition.
(3.) The prayer in this writ petition is for quashing the impugned notification and for issuing a writ of mandamus to the High Court of Karnataka to do the entire exercise afresh, based on the applications already received. Another prayer is to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the Government of India to frame the Rules in exercise of the powers conferred on it under sub section (2) of Section 16 of the Advocates Act, strictly in conformity with the objects and purposes of the Advocates Act. IA-2 of 2019 has been filed in this writ petition for production of documents. It is contended that the Senior Advocates Rules framed by the High Court of Karnataka are not in conformity with the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in the decision in the case of Indira Jaising and therefore, he seeks to produce the Rules framed in terms of the said decision of the Apex Court by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay and the High Court of Delhi.;