Decided on May 22,2017

Sahasranaman, P.B. Appellant
Kerala High Court Respondents


- (1.) Dama Seshadri Naidu, J. - 1. Introduction : A learned lawyer longs for recognition; he seeks a favour from the judges before whom he pleads daily-designation as a Senior Advocate. The judges, cautious as they are, remain reluctant to confer the favour. They deliberate the issue and calibrate the counsel. They decide that time has not yet come for the lawyer to make the mark, to get the grade, and to earn the distinction. The judges reckon conferring is not for mere asking; it must be earned. So, they refuse. Ruffled, the lawyer questions: he files this writ petition. Is the lawyer impatient, imprudent, impudent, or justly insistent? Facts:
(2.) P.B. Sahasranaman ("PBSN"), the petitioner, a practicing lawyer, has a standing of 33 years at the Bar. On 29.8.2014, he gave his "consent" to be designated as a senior advocate. The High Court of Kerala considered PBSN's "consent" along with nine other proposals in a Full-Court meeting held on 19.8.2015. Eventually, on 30th September 2015, the Court informed the lawyer that he had failed to secure the votes of two-third judges "present" in the meeting, as required under Rule 6 of the Rules framed under Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act.
(3.) Aggrieved, PBSN initially approached the Supreme Court by filing WP (C) No.135 of 2016. Later, he withdrew that writ petition with liberty to move this Court, as seen from the Ext.P10 order of the Supreme Court. Thus, the issue about how an advocate should be designated as a Senior Counsel is before us. Submissions: The Petitioner's: ;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.