https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286260 Practising advocates had sufficient locus standi to challenge the designation procedure for senior advocates because they had a direct and substantial interest in the Bar's composition. The High Court could frame rules regulating designation under Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, as the power to designate carried incidental authority to regulate its exercise. Rule 3(B) was ultra vires only to the extent it gave a Screening Committee final veto power and excluded names from Full Court consideration, because the statute required the High Court itself to form the requisite opinion; that offending portion was severable, while the remaining procedure stood. en-us Tue, 23 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 18 Feb 2020 14:53:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286260 Practising advocates had sufficient locus standi to challenge the designation procedure for senior advocates because they had a direct and substantial interest in the Bar's composition. The High Court could frame rules regulating designation under Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, as the power to designate carried incidental authority to regulate its exercise. Rule 3(B) was ultra vires only to the extent it gave a Screening Committee final veto power and excluded names from Full Court consideration, because the statute required the High Court itself to form the requisite opinion; that offending portion was severable, while the remaining procedure stood. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 23 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286260