"No application of mind by Full Court:" Plea in Supreme Court challenges designation of 19 Senior Advocates by Punjab & Haryana High Court

A writ petition has been filed before the Supreme Court challenging the May 28, 2021, notification of the Punjab & Haryana High Court designating 19 lawyers (including 2 women advocates) as Senior Advocates..The decision by the High Court was taken at a Full Court meeting, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act 1961..The plea in Supreme Court filed through advocate Malak Manish Bhatt stated that the High Court violated the mandatory and binding directions of the Supreme Court and Rules 9 to 11 of the Rules framed by the High Court pursuant to the Indira Jaising case. It is claimed that the final lists or recommendations were drawn illegally and not as per the marks/ranking and relative merit..The plea said that the entire result of 112 candidates was never placed before the Full Court for approval and thus claims that the "Full Court wrongly and illegally voted thereon."It was submitted that 113 applications for Senior Advocate designation were received. However, it was "all of a sudden on May 19, 2021 that all the applicants" were surprisingly called physically to High Court premises [not minding curfew and lockdowns]."."Permanent committee sat online during such interactions between 20th to 22nd May, 2021, [almost 08 hours], barely giving even a minute’s time to each of the 112 candidates [one had died but records were not update for two years]," the plea said..As per the plea , a list of 41 candidates had been prepared. Another list was reportedly drawn, and then finally, on My 25, 2021, a list of 27 recommended candidates was in circulation.The plea stated that the relative merit of all candidates vis-a-vis the designees was never declared.."Obviously, in the absence of any agenda, data or material of 85 candidates, there was no application of mind of the Full Court as mandated by this Court in Indira Jaising’s case," the petitioner stated..The petition thus sought the following reliefs:Direction to produce the complete records and that the same be placed under safe custody for the pendency of the case Order quashing the notification dated May 28 and also setting aside list of Senior Designations Direction to strictly adhere to High Court Rules on Senior Designations Direction to Permanent Committee to adhere to Rules 9 and 10 of the High Court Rules Stay on implementation of notice designating 19 Seniors.