Dismissed

Bombay Lawyer'S Association v. Union of India and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC18 Mar 2016PIL/54/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a writ directing the respondents to amend Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961 to automatically declare Advocates with 25 years practice as Senior Advocates. The Court held it cannot direct the legislature to legislate and rejected the prayer as contrary to public interest and not fit for PIL.

What did the court decide?

Direction to amend Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961 was refused and the petition rejected.

Bombay Lawyer'S Association Vs Union of India and 3 Ors. — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2016)

pil-54.15

pmw

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.54 OF 2015

¶6

Bombay Lawyers' Association … Petitioner Versus Union of India and Ors. … Respondents

¶7

Mr. Ahmed Abdi a/w Mr. Satyaprakash Sharma i/by Abdi & Co. for the Petitioner.

¶8

Mrs. Neeta V. Masurkar for the Respondent No.1. Mrs. P.H. Kantharia, Government Pleader for the Respondent No.3.

¶9

CORAM : A.S. OKA & P.D. NAIK, JJ. DATE : 18^th MARCH, 2016

¶10

P.C.

¶11

1 The only substantive prayer in this PIL is prayer clause (a)

¶12

which reads thus :-

¶13

“(a) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue appropriate writ or direction or order to the Respondents to consider carrying out appropriate amendment in Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961 for declaration of Advocates having 25 years practice as Senior Advocate in the larger public interest.”

¶14

2 Firstly, this Court in exercise of its power under Article 226

¶15

of the Constitution of India cannot direct the legislature to legislate. Secondly, the concept “Senior Advocate” as provided in Section 16

¶16

1 of 2

¶17

2 pil-54.15

¶18

appears to be that a member of the Bar can be designated as a Senior Advocate provided, the Supreme Court of India or a High Court, as the case may be, is of the opinion that such member of the Bar deserves distinction after considering his ability, experience and standing at the Bar or special knowledge or experience in law. Merely because a member of the Bar has a long standing only in terms of the length of practice, he cannot be given such designation.

¶19

3 If every member of the Bar who has completed 25 years of practice is designated as a Senior Advocate, the very object of the concept of designating a member of the Bar as “Senior Advocate” will be defeated. Moreover, we fail to understand how it will be in the public interest to designate every Advocate having 25 years of practice as a Senior Advocate. The prayer is not in public interest. Hence, this is not a fit case to entertain the PIL.

¶20

4 The learned counsel appearing in the PIL at this stage points out that the representation made by the Petitioner has been forwarded by the Government of India to the Bar Council of India and the issue is under consideration of the Bar Council of India. Suffice it to say that a writ as prayed cannot be issued. Subject to what is observed above, the Petition is rejected.

¶21

(P.D. NAIK, J )

¶22

2 of 2

Bombay Lawyer'S Association v. Union of India and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bombay Lawyer'S Association v. Union of India and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sau. Mangala W/O Shrikrishna Patil, President, Municipal Council, Malkapur and Anothers Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mumbai and 2 Othe

Shri C.R. Jaya Sukin Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Shri Appasaheb Babaji Patil and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Ors.

Shri Appasaheb Babaji Patil and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Ors.

Mr. Vikram Vishnu Garasia Vs the State of Maharashtra through Chief Secretary, and 7 Ors.

Mr. Ramnagina Yadav and Another Vs State of Maharashtra and 4 Others

Shri. Pravin Ganpatrao Kadam Vs Shri. Prakash Haribhau Londhe and Ors.

Bombay Lawyers Association Vs State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Sicom Ltd. Vs the Official Liquidator of Shree Marathewada Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd.

M/S Crystal Builders and Developers Vs Dr. Mrs Shaileja Shridhar Paradkar and 4 Ors.

Sicom Ltd. Vs the Official Liquidator of Shree Marathewada Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd.

Bombay Lawyers Association Vs Union of India and Another

Jashwant B. Mehta and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Mahashtra and 3 Ors.

1. Narsimha Enterprises and Anr. Vs Medtronic Inc. and Ors.