The two-judge bench dismissed this intra-court appeal against a judgment rejecting the request to designate a practicing Advocate as Senior Advocate. The Court held the designation is a privilege, not a right, and upheld the High Court Rules requiring two-thirds affirmative votes of judges present.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017/19TH SRAVANA, 1939
WA. No.1500 of 2017 ()
(AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 22-05-2017 IN WP(C) NO.21661/2016.)
APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER:
ADV.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O. P. S. B. RAJ, NARAYANEEYAM, CHITTOOR ROAD, COCHIN-682 011.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.RAVINDRAN (SR.) SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR SRI.V.R.RAJESH
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT:
THE KERALA HIGH COURT, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR (GENERAL) HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKUAM-682 031.
BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.) SRI.C.S.DIAS
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25-07-2017, THE COURT ON 10-08-2017 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH, C.J.
&
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J.
W.A. No. 1500 of 2017
JUDGMENT
Navaniti Prasad Singh, C.J.
This intra court appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22.05.2017 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.21661 of 2016 whereby, the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.
WA.1500/17
-:2:-
advocates other than the appellant as Senior Advocates and consequently, in response to queries made by the appellant, this Court through the Registrar General on 30.09.2015 by Exhibit P3 informed the appellant that he had failed to secure two-third votes of the Honourable Judges present in the said meeting as required under Rule 6 of the Rules framed by this Court under Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961 and hence, could not be designated as Senior Advocate by the High Court of Kerala.
WA.1500/17
-:3:-
appellant had initially moved the Apex Court by filing W.P.(C) No.135 of 2016 - M.K.S.Menon and Others v. Kerala High Court, Rep. by Registrar General and others, which was heard and dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to move the High Court for appropriate relief by order dated 08.03.2016, apparently even without notice to the respondents therein, including this Court. As noted above, the present writ petition was filed thereafter only on 27.06.2016.
WA.1500/17
-:4:-
consider him deserving enough to be designated as Senior Advocate. His case would be an open and shut case at the very beginning itself. It is faced with this situation, it was secondly and alternatively argued and his case was based upon true interpretation of Rule 6 of the Kerala High Court Rules as framed in the year 2000. On his behalf, the contention would literally be that the Rule should be read as two-third of the Judges “ present and voting” instead of “ present ” as contained in the Rules. The learned single Judge has dealt with this issue rather elaborately and again we see no reason to take a different view of the matter, but we would still deal with the issue as it has been argued afresh at length.
WA.1500/17
-:5:-
the time the writ petition was filed, the ballot papers had been destroyed. To us, in the absence of facts available to grant the relief of recounting and consequently, reconsider the decision of declaring designation, the writ petition itself became only of academic interest. No writ could have been issued. Yet, for the purpose of interpretation of Rule 6 of the High Court Rules, 2000, the learned single Judge in the writ petition and this Bench in the intra court appeal would consider the argument.
“ 16. Senior and other advocates .-(1) There shall be two classes of advocates, namely, senior advocates and other advocates.
(2) An advocate may, with his consent, be designated as senior advocate if the Supreme Court or a High Court is of opinion that by virtue of his ability standing at the Bar or special knowledge or experience in law he is deserving of such distinction.”
Rule 6 of the Rules of Kerala High Court Regarding Designation as Senior Advocates, 2000 reads as under:
“6. The proposal for designation, shall be considered at a meeting of the Honourable the chief
WA.1500/17
-:6:-
Justice and the other Judges of the High Court. Such proposal shall be considered as accepted only if not less than two-thirds of the total number of Judges present at such meeting decide in favour of accepting the application, by secret ballot.”
WA.1500/17
-:7:-
noticed by the learned single Judge, with reference to different Rules framed by different High Courts for this purpose, the High Courts have adopted different standards and there is no consistent practice. Therefore, we must deal with the Rules framed by this High Court as such.
WA.1500/17
-:8:-
In the above view of the matter, we are unable to interfere. This appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/Navaniti Prasad Singh, Chief Justice
Sd/Raja Vijayaraghavan V., Judge
krj.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant could claim designation as Senior Advocate as a matter of right if the number of judges expressing an affirmative vote did not meet the threshold.
Whether High Court Rules regarding Senior Advocate designation requiring two-thirds of 'Judges present' instead of 'present and voting' are valid.
Whether the Full Court's decision to reject the designation of Senior Advocate to the appellant should be set aside.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
A.P. Sahasranaman
Kerala High Court, Rep. by Registrar General
Navaniti Prasad Singh
Raja Vijayaraghavan V.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
