Calcutta HC stalls Senior Designations pending challenge to HC Guidelines [Read Order]

The Calcutta High Court has “very strongly” requested the committee for designation of Senior Advocates to refrain from making any further Senior designations till a petition challenging the Constitutionality of the High Court guidelines for conferment of Senior gown is decided..A Bench of Justices IP Mukerji and Amrita Sinha passed this order after an advocate, Debasish Roy challenged the Calcutta High Court’s Senior designation process as being unconstitutional, violative of the Advocates Act, 1961 and contrary to the judgment in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India & Ors as well as the Supreme Court Guidelines to Regulate Conferment of Designation of Senior Advocates, 2018..As directed in the order passed on Wednesday,.“… the committee for designation of senior advocates is very strongly requested by this court not to take any further steps in making any further recommendation of names for designation as senior advocates..…This order will continue till the judgment is pronounced of this court.“.Following the Indira Jaising judgment in October 2017, which called for the framing of guidelines to ensure a more objective and transparent system for designating Senior Advocates, the Calcutta High Court had notified new guidelines for Senior designations on July 12, 2018..However, as per Roy, these guidelines are arbitrary, vague and violative of Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution. Inter alia, the petitioner has raised objection with respect to the following:.The guidelines only allow advocates having regular practice before the Calcutta High Court to apply for Senior designation, effectively excluding trial court advocates who are otherwise qualified for being designated as Senior Advocates. No such embargo is contemplated in the Advocates Act or the Indira Jaising judgement. Such discrimination is unconstitutional, argues the petitioner.Applicant advocates are required to disclose their income while applying for the gown. However, the Indira Jaising judgment had done away with the income criterion when it comes to conferring Senior designations. Further, no such criterion is contemplated in the Advocates Act.The Calcutta High Court guidelines restrict the classes of persons who are defined as ‘stakeholders’ eligible to send in their views on whether the applicant advocates ought to be appointed.When it comes to giving weightage to the pro bono services rendered by an advocate applicant, the guidelines only recognise pro bono services rendered by those empanelled with the State Legal Services. Thereby, pro bono work rendered otherwise by advocates who are not empanelled with the State Legal Services are discounted.Ordinarily, applicant advocates are required to obtain at least 60 points out of a possible 100 to qualify for Senior designations. The Calcutta High Court guidelines, however, confer Senior Designation Committee the discretion to relax this threshold by 10 percent for “deserving candidates”. However, in the absence of any definition as to who a “deserving candidate” is, there is scope for favouritism and arbitrariness when it comes to relaxation of marks, the petitioner argues..On July 25, 2018, another notification was published inviting applications from those interested in being conferred with Senior gown. By the said notification, applicant advocates were given a week to apply for Senior designation. The pace at which the process was carried out has also been objected to by the petitioner as being unduly hasty..“It seems that the process of designating Senior Advocates by the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta is being speedily concluded and in purported accordance with the Calcutta High Court guidelines, which are evidently opaque, arbitrary and detrimental to the proper and transparent functioning of the legal profession.“.The petitioner had also made RTI applications to discern whether advocates who were related to judges or Senior Advocates were given an advantage in the Senior designation process. Further, a letter was addressed to the Calcutta High Court Chief Justice, raising the above concerns..When these representations failed to yield any constructive response, Roy moved the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, however, directed that Roy approach the High Court with his petition..The Calcutta High Court in turn has concluded that there are serious questions raised in the petition which require consideration. Therefore, it opined that the Senior designation process ought to be halted until a judgment on the issue is pronounced..During the pendency of the matter, the High Court was also informed that at least three candidates had been recommended by the Senior Designations Committee for appointment as Senior Advocates, subject to Full Court approval. However, since the High Court has now taken up the main challenge to the Senior designation process itself, it has also directed that this process be stalled for the present. Accordingly, its order states,