TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether practising advocates had locus standi to challenge the designation process for senior advocates. (ii) Whether the High Court had power to frame the impugned rules regulating designation under the Advocates Act, 1961. (iii) Whether Rule 3(B), in so far as it allowed a Screening Committee to finally disapprove recommendations and excluded recommended names from consideration by the Full Court, was ultra vires Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961.
Issue (i): Whether practising advocates had locus standi to challenge the designation process for senior advocates.
Analysis: The right to question the legality of the designation procedure was not confined to a recommended advocate alone. Advocates practising before the High Court had a direct and substantial interest in the composition and status of the Bar, and the challenge was not shown to be motivated by any private gain or oblique purpose. The petitioners therefore had sufficient interest to maintain the writ petition.
Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the petitioners.
Issue (ii): Whether the High Court had power to frame the impugned rules regulating designation under the Advocates Act, 1961.
Analysis: The power under Section 16(2) to designate an advocate as a senior advocate carries with it the incidental authority to regulate the manner of its exercise. The rules governing the procedure for designation were referable to the High Court's authority under the statute, and the regulatory field was not confined to Section 28. The Court also noted that the post-designation restrictions in practice reinforced the statutory character of the subject-matter.
Conclusion: The High Court had authority to frame rules regulating the designation process.
Issue (iii): Whether Rule 3(B), in so far as it allowed a Screening Committee to finally disapprove recommendations and excluded recommended names from consideration by the Full Court, was ultra vires Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961.
Analysis: Designation under Section 16(2) required the opinion of the High Court itself, meaning the collective judicial body and not a smaller committee exercising final veto power. The Committee could assist by screening and placing material before the Full Court, but it could not supplant the Court's statutory function. The impugned words in Rule 3(B) amounted to an unauthorised sub-delegation and the rule was severable to that extent. The procedure did not exclude district court advocates from consideration, though the Court indicated that the rules should be suitably amended to make their consideration clearer in practice.
Conclusion: The offending words in Rule 3(B) were ultra vires and liable to be struck down, while the remainder of the rule could stand.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded. The designation process was sustained only after removing the impermissible committee veto, and the Full Court's decision on the pending recommendations was directed to be given effect to.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute entrusts a collective court with the power to form its own opinion for conferring a special legal status, that power may be assisted by a screening mechanism but cannot be finally surrendered to a committee unless the statute clearly authorises such sub-delegation.
TaxTMI 
