The reluctance of the court to list the matter on a non-miscellaneous day, it seems, was a definitive indicator of the mood of the Bench..The hearing that ensued today did seem to confirm that indication. The challenge to the process followed by the Supreme Court for designating lawyers as Senior Advocates seems to have fizzled out, with the Bench making it clear that it is closing the matter..A Bench of Chief Justice TS Thakur and Justices DY Chandrachud and L Nageswara Rao heard all parties today and reserved its judgment. The latter stages of the hearing today was drowned in the melee started by certain lawyers..The Bench once again conveyed its disinterest as well as its intention to keep the current system in tact..Senior Counsel Indira Jaising today submitted to the court the results of the survey conducted by Bar & Bench on Senior Designations. Before handing over the survey report, she said,.“Your lordships has posed a question to me during the last hearing – what is the nature of the problem. This survey answers that question. It gives a general idea about how the issue is perceived by the Bar.” .She then also submitted the details of the marking criteria proposed by her..“The problem is of opportunity. And the lawyers perceive that there is no equality of opportunity. There is one view that seniority should be the only criterion. Another view is that the system should be abolished. I am taking a middle path.”.The court, however, questioned the criteria suggested by her to give marks to candidates..When Jaising spoke about the practice of lobbying, the court asked Jaising whether she had lobbied for her gown. To this, she retorted,.“No. I did not. Please don’t compel me to disclose information which I am privy to.”.She then submitted,.“It is not about individuals but about the system. There is a definite monopoly at the Bar of a handful of Seniors and it is affecting access to justice.”.The Bar was, however, clearly not united in its views. Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi, Senior Advocate AM Singhvi, SCBA President Dushyant Dave and Senior Counsel Soli Sorabjee all had different views..While Singhvi maintained that a mechanism of marking could be followed internally by the judges, his stress was on consistency. Dushyant Dave said that the Court should formulate some rules but it should not go for a very formal method..Mukul Rohatgi made it clear that he is opposed to a marking system. He also vehemently argued that the Senior Designation process should restart and that this case should be closed. The Bench also agreed with him on this point..As the hearing drew to a close, certain lawyers started making vociferous submissions demanding that they be heard. CJI Thakur finally lost his cool and asked a lawyer to “shut up”..“Is this a court or a market place?”.The court reserved its judgment in the matter though the parties have been given a week’s time to file further submissions in writing..Image of Chief Justice Thakur taken from the Supreme Court of India website.
The reluctance of the court to list the matter on a non-miscellaneous day, it seems, was a definitive indicator of the mood of the Bench..The hearing that ensued today did seem to confirm that indication. The challenge to the process followed by the Supreme Court for designating lawyers as Senior Advocates seems to have fizzled out, with the Bench making it clear that it is closing the matter..A Bench of Chief Justice TS Thakur and Justices DY Chandrachud and L Nageswara Rao heard all parties today and reserved its judgment. The latter stages of the hearing today was drowned in the melee started by certain lawyers..The Bench once again conveyed its disinterest as well as its intention to keep the current system in tact..Senior Counsel Indira Jaising today submitted to the court the results of the survey conducted by Bar & Bench on Senior Designations. Before handing over the survey report, she said,.“Your lordships has posed a question to me during the last hearing – what is the nature of the problem. This survey answers that question. It gives a general idea about how the issue is perceived by the Bar.” .She then also submitted the details of the marking criteria proposed by her..“The problem is of opportunity. And the lawyers perceive that there is no equality of opportunity. There is one view that seniority should be the only criterion. Another view is that the system should be abolished. I am taking a middle path.”.The court, however, questioned the criteria suggested by her to give marks to candidates..When Jaising spoke about the practice of lobbying, the court asked Jaising whether she had lobbied for her gown. To this, she retorted,.“No. I did not. Please don’t compel me to disclose information which I am privy to.”.She then submitted,.“It is not about individuals but about the system. There is a definite monopoly at the Bar of a handful of Seniors and it is affecting access to justice.”.The Bar was, however, clearly not united in its views. Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi, Senior Advocate AM Singhvi, SCBA President Dushyant Dave and Senior Counsel Soli Sorabjee all had different views..While Singhvi maintained that a mechanism of marking could be followed internally by the judges, his stress was on consistency. Dushyant Dave said that the Court should formulate some rules but it should not go for a very formal method..Mukul Rohatgi made it clear that he is opposed to a marking system. He also vehemently argued that the Senior Designation process should restart and that this case should be closed. The Bench also agreed with him on this point..As the hearing drew to a close, certain lawyers started making vociferous submissions demanding that they be heard. CJI Thakur finally lost his cool and asked a lawyer to “shut up”..“Is this a court or a market place?”.The court reserved its judgment in the matter though the parties have been given a week’s time to file further submissions in writing..Image of Chief Justice Thakur taken from the Supreme Court of India website.
