RANJAN GOGOI,J. - (1.) The petitioner in Writ Petition (C) No. 454 of 2015 is a Senior Advocate designated by the High Court of Bombay in the year 1986. She has been in practice in the Supreme Court of India for the last several decades and has also served as an Additional Solicitor General for the Union of India. The perception of the petitioner that the present system of designation of Senior Advocates in the Supreme Court of India is flawed and the system needs to be rectified and acceptable parameters laid down has led to the institution of Writ Petition (C) No. 454 of 2015 with the following prayers. "(a) Issue writ order, or direction declaring that the system of designation of Senior Advocates by recently introduced method of vote is arbitrary and contrary to the notions of diversity violating Articles 14, 15 and 21 and therefore, it is unconstitutional and null and void; and (b) Issue writ order or direction for appointment of a permanent Selection Committee with a secretariat headed by a lay person, which includes the Respondent 4 Attorney General of India, representatives from the Respondent 5 -SCBA and the Respondent 6- AOR Association and academics, for the designation of Senior Advocates on the basis of an assessment made on a point system as suggested in Annexure P8; and (c) Issue a writ of mandamus or direction directing the Respondent-1 representing Chief Justice and Judges of the Supreme Court to appoint a Search Committee to identify the Advocates who conduct Public Interest Litigation (PIL) cases and Advocates who practice in the area of their Domain Expertise viz., constitutional law, international arbitration, inter-State water disputes, cyber laws etc. and to designate them as Senior Advocates; (d) Issue a writ of mandamus or direction directing the Respondent-1 representing Chief Justice and Judges of the Supreme Court to frame guidelines requiring the preparation of an Assessment Report by the Peers Committee on the Advocates who apply for designation based on an index 100 points as suggested in Annexure P8; (e) Issue a writ of mandamus or direction directing the Respondent-1 representing Chief Justice and Judges of the Supreme Court to reconsider its decision taken in the Full Court held on 11.02.2014 and 23.04.2015 and designate as Senior Advocate all those Advocates whose applications seeking designation had received recommendation by not less than five Judges of the Supreme Court (including deferred applicants) during the process of circulation ordered by the Chief Justice."
(2.) Legal practice in India, though a booming profession, success has come to a few select members of the profession, the vast majority of them being designated Senior Advocates. The issues raised in the writ petition, therefore, are highly contentious issues raising question of considerable magnitude so far as the Indian Bar and in fact the Country's legal system is concerned. Intervention applications, as expected, have been filed by several individuals and associations, including the Bar Association of India. The Attorney General for India was requested to appear in the case and he has very magnanimously responded to the request of the Court by remaining present throughout the prolonged hearing that had taken place.
(3.) By Order of the Court dated 24.04.2017 passed in I.A. No. 5, notice of this case was directed to be put up on the website of this Court to enable the High Courts and the Bar Associations of the different High Courts to participate in the proceedings. Pursuant thereto many High Courts have communicated to the Registry of this Court "the Rules - (Guidelines)" framed by the High Courts in the matter of designation of Senior Advocates. The Gujarat High Court Advocates' Association has filed an intervention application (I.A. No. 53321 of 2017) which goes beyond four corners of the writ petition itself inasmuch as the association has challenged the validity of Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") which empowers the Supreme Court or a High Court to designate Senior Advocates. In view of the importance of the issue, we have permitted the Gujarat High Court Advocates' Association to urge all contentions, as raised, by virtually treating the Intervention application filed to be a substantive writ petition. Over and above, there is a writ petition filed before the Delhi High Court which has been transferred to this Court for being heard along with Writ Petition (C) No. 454 of 2015. In the said writ petition (Writ Petition (C) No. 6331 of 2016 titled "National Lawyers Campaign for Judicial Transparency and Reforms and Anr. v. The Bar Council of India and Anr") Section 16 of the Act as well as Rule 2 of Chapter IV of the Supreme Court Rules 2013 has been challenged as constitutionally impermissible. Alternatively, it has been prayed that the designation of Senior Advocates by the Supreme Court of India as well as the High Courts of the country be rationalized by laying down acceptable parameters to govern the exercise of designation. There is yet another connected writ petition i.e. Writ Petition (C) No. 33 of 2016 filed by The High Court of Meghalaya Bar Association, which was heard by this Court separately on 14.09.2017. In the aforesaid writ petition the validity of the guidelines framed by the High Court of Meghalaya for designation of Senior Advocate(s) on 13.1.2016 is under challenge. By the aforesaid amendment, an Advocate General of any State of the Country so long as he himself is a designated Senior Advocate and any Senior Advocate practicing in any High Court has been authorized to propose the name of an Advocate, practicing in any court of the Country, for designation as a Senior Advocate by the High Court of Meghalaya. In other words, the effect of the amendment, in departure to the prevailing practice, is to enable any Senior Advocate of any High Court to propose the name of any Advocate practicing in any High Court in the country for designation as a Senior Advocate of the Meghalaya High Court. Also challenged is the amendment of the said Guidelines made on 31.03.2015 by which the requirement of practice of 5 years in any Court within the jurisdiction of the High Court of Meghalaya has been deleted and instead 5 years practice in any court, namely, the Supreme Court of India, High Courts or District Courts has been introduced as a condition of eligibility for designation. Writ Petition (C) No. 819 of 2016 also raises the very same questions.;