M. Solomon Raju, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Andhra Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

M. Solomon Raju, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Andhra Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court calendar for 2026, published without consultation with the Bar Association or its President, warrants interference and a direction to reissue the calendar in consultation with the Andhra Pradesh High Court Bar Association.

Court's answer

The High Court Bar Association, which otherwise represents the collective interest of the advocates practising in the High Court, is not a petitioner before the Court.

Ratio / Principle

The High Court calendar is published based upon the recommendation of a Committee constituted specifically for that purpose, which takes into consideration all material factors.

Key takeaways

The Committee's recommendations are circulated through the full Court and the calendar is published only upon approval by the full Court.ratio¶19
All the requisite steps otherwise required to be taken were followed strictly before the calendar was published.ratio¶19
The High Court has always considered the genuine requests of the members of the Bar as represented through the Bar Association.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

M. Solomon Raju, a practising advocate, filed W.P. No. 33901 of 2025 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati challenging the issuance of the High Court calendar for 2026 on the ground that it was published without consulting the Bar Association or its President despite repeated representations, and sought a direction to reissue the calendar in consultation with the Andhra Pradesh High Court Bar Association. The Bench of Dhiraj Singh Thakur, CJ and Challa Gunaranjan, J observed that the High Court Bar Association itself was not a petitioner; that the calendar is published on the recommendation of a specially constituted Committee, circulated through the full Court and published only upon approval by the full Court; that all requisite steps had been strictly followed before publication; and that the High Court has always considered the genuine requests of the Bar represented through the Bar Association. Finding no merit, the writ petition was dismissed with no costs, and pending miscellaneous applications were closed.

APHC010652412025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3552] AT AMARAVATI

WRIT PETITION NO: 33901 of 2025

M. Solomon Raju,

...Petitioner

Vs.

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

...Respondent(s)

Advocate for Petitioner: Mr. Chaparla Sitaram, appearing vice Mr. Balaiah B. Advocate for Respondent: GP for Law Legislative Affairs

CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN

DATE : 08.12.2025

P C :

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is a practicing advocate, challenging the issuance of the High Court calendar for the year 2026 primarily on the ground that the same was published without consulting the Bar Association or its President despite repeated representations in that regard.

The petitioner seeks a further relief in the nature of a direction to reissue the High Court calendar in consultation with the Andhra Pradesh High Court Bar Association.

2

HCJ & CGR, J W.P. No: 33901 of 2025

It can be seen that High Court Bar Association is not a petitioner before us, which otherwise represents the collective interest of the advocates practicing in the High Court.

Needless to say that the High Court calendar is published based upon the recommendation of a Committee constituted specifically for that purpose, which takes into consideration all material factors. The recommendations are then circulated through the full Court and it is only upon approval by the full Court that the same is published. All the requisite steps which are otherwise required to be taken have been followed strictly before the calendar was published. Needless to say that the High Court has always considered the genuine requests of the members of the Bar as represented through the Bar Association.

Be that as it may, we find no merit in the present petition, which is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ

CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J

akn

394

3

HCJ & CGR, J W.P. No: 33901 of 2025

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN

Writ Petition No: 33901 of 2025

DATE : 08.12.2025

AKN