Senior Designation Rules: PIL in Madras High Court challenges minimum age, experience criteria

A public interest litigation (PIL) has been moved before the Madras High Court challenging the validity of Rules 4(1)(a) and 4(1)(b) of the Madras High Court Designation of Senior Advocates Rules, 2020, which prescribe a minimum age (45 years) and experience criteria for an advocate to be eligible to be designated as a Senior Advocate (Rangasamy and ors v. The High Court of Madras)..A Bench headed by Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee on Thursday revealed that a committee tasked to look into the matter after a Full Court meeting is likely to furnish its report in the next few weeks. As such, the matter was adjourned to the second week of November. .Advocate SV Pravin Rathinam appeared for the petitioners today. .The petition has been filed by five lawyers who assert that the challenged provisions run contrary to the Supreme Court's ruling in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India and the 2018 guidelines issued by the Supreme Court thereafter for designation of Senior Advocates. .The petitioners highlight that it is clear from the Supreme Court judgment and the guidelines that the minimum eligibility requirement should have to do with experience or standing at the Bar, and not age. As per the Supreme Court guidelines, persons with ten years standing at the Bar are eligible to apply for Senior Advocate designation, it is pointed out..On the other hand, it is stated, Rule 4(1)(a) of the Madras High Court Rules lay down that an advocate should be at least 45 years of age to be eligible to apply. Further, Rule 4(1)(b) requires that the applying advocate should have fifteen years combined experience as an advocate or as a District and Sessions Judge ,or as a Judicial Member of a Tribunal..In this backdrop, the petitioners have raised the following, among other, contentions:Other High Courts in the country have adopted ten years of experience (or standing at the Bar) as one of the eligibility criteria instead of a minimum age/experience condition. Whereas the Madhya Pradesh High Court and the Jammu and Kashmir High Court initially prescribed a minimum experience of fifteen years and a minimum age of 40 years as part of the eligibility criteria respectively, amendments were later introduced to do away with such conditions. The only chartered High Court which has a minimum age requirement is the Madras High Court. It is also the only High Court to have an experience requirement of fifteen years standing, despite the requirement being ten years across all High Courts and the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has already categorically stated that there cannot be a minimum age requirement. As such, an application to clarify the very same position before the Supreme Court may not be necessary. The Rules under challenge create a class in contravention of the Supreme Court's judgment in the Indira Jaising case. It is imperative that the advocates practicing in Tamil Nadu who are below the age of 45 years and who have more than ten years of experience but less than fifteen years, and those advocates who are otherwise considered worthy of designation by the High Court are not ignored or treated differently from advocates in the rest of the country. Such advocates should be given the opportunity to apply for designation. The Rules under challenge violate Article 14 (right to equality) of the Constitution of India as it creates a separate class that has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the Rules. The challenged Rules are arbitrary and unconstitutional..The Madras High Court had notified its Senior Designation Rules in July 2020. Shortly after it was notified, however, concerns were raised on certain aspects of the Rules including the minimum age cap of 45 years and the bar on Senior Advocates from seeking adjournments, among other concerns..The Tamil Nadu Advocates' Association and the Bar Council of India were among those who had flagged these concerns in representations made last year. .In response, the Permanent Committee of the High Court had intimated minor clarifications and changes. On the issue of minimum age limit, however, the Committee had called for an intervention application to be filed in the Supreme Court for clarification. The apex court had also taken up related issues around the same time.