The Karnataka High Court Senior Designations controversy came to an end today, with the High Court dismissing the petitions challenging the designation of 15 lawyers as senior advocates..A Bench of Acting Chief Justice SK Mukherjee and Justice Nagarathna today pronounced the judgment, which was reserved in July this year..In June last year, two writ petitions were filed by advocates M Veerabhadraiah and TN Raghupathy challenging the designation of 15 lawyers by the Karnataka High Court in 2014. Among these designated lawyers was Sajan Poovayya, Aditya Sondhi, Prabhuling Navadgi and Dhyan Chinnappa, among others..When the matter initially came up for hearing in August 2014, the High Court dismissed it on grounds of locus, after which the petitioners approached the Supreme Court. Then in December, the apex court had directed the Karnataka High Court to hear the matter on merits..During the course of the hearings, which came up in the High Court again in July this year, Raghupathy argued that the designations were made in a manner contrary to the spirit of the Advocates Act. He also submitted that the recommendations from existing Seniors should be done voluntarily and not on the basis of an application by advocates..Further, he questioned the system of voting by the Full Court by secret ballot. However, Justice Mukherjee pointed out that the voting was done by secret ballot so that the advocates don’t know which judge voted against them..Senior Advocate N Devadas, appearing on behalf of the other petitioner, M Veerabhadriah, questioned as to why the designations were done in two batches and not at one go. Devadas also pointed out that the first round of designations were made before the High Court’s Designation of Senior Advocates Rules were finalised by the court..Another gripe the petitioners had was the young age of the designees, an argument which opposing counsel Senior Advocate Udaya Holla had shot down. He was quoted as saying,.“Why shouldn’t they be made Seniors? They are the future of the profession, not us oldies.”.The judgment comes as a relief to the 15 lawyers whose designation has been uncertain over the last 18 months. From the perspective of the petitioners, it will be interesting to see whether they prefer an appeal to the Supreme Court..Interestingly, a similar PIL filed by Indira Jaising is pending in the Supreme Court. The Senior Advocate aims to do away with differential treatment of advocates on the basis of seniority. That matter is scheduled to come up for hearing again in January..Further details awaited..Here is a timeline of the case:.DateEventFebruary 13, 2014The Full Court resolves to fix norms for designation of Senior CounselMarch 21, 2014Rules framed by committee and placed before Full Court before vacation; matter is deferredJune 30, 2014Notification on designation of four Senior Advocates publishedJuly 14, 2014Notification on designation of eleven more Senior Advocates publishedJuly 25, 2014Writ filed by advocate TN Raghupathy in HC challenging designationsJuly 28, 2014Writ filed by advocate M VeerabhadraiahAugust 4, 2014HC rules that petitioners have no locus to file the writDecember 16, 2014SC directs HC to hear matter on meritsJuly 8, 2015Arguments commence in ACJ SK Mukherjee’s courtJuly 10, 2015Judgment reservedDecember 18, 2015High Court dismisses petitions
The Karnataka High Court Senior Designations controversy came to an end today, with the High Court dismissing the petitions challenging the designation of 15 lawyers as senior advocates..A Bench of Acting Chief Justice SK Mukherjee and Justice Nagarathna today pronounced the judgment, which was reserved in July this year..In June last year, two writ petitions were filed by advocates M Veerabhadraiah and TN Raghupathy challenging the designation of 15 lawyers by the Karnataka High Court in 2014. Among these designated lawyers was Sajan Poovayya, Aditya Sondhi, Prabhuling Navadgi and Dhyan Chinnappa, among others..When the matter initially came up for hearing in August 2014, the High Court dismissed it on grounds of locus, after which the petitioners approached the Supreme Court. Then in December, the apex court had directed the Karnataka High Court to hear the matter on merits..During the course of the hearings, which came up in the High Court again in July this year, Raghupathy argued that the designations were made in a manner contrary to the spirit of the Advocates Act. He also submitted that the recommendations from existing Seniors should be done voluntarily and not on the basis of an application by advocates..Further, he questioned the system of voting by the Full Court by secret ballot. However, Justice Mukherjee pointed out that the voting was done by secret ballot so that the advocates don’t know which judge voted against them..Senior Advocate N Devadas, appearing on behalf of the other petitioner, M Veerabhadriah, questioned as to why the designations were done in two batches and not at one go. Devadas also pointed out that the first round of designations were made before the High Court’s Designation of Senior Advocates Rules were finalised by the court..Another gripe the petitioners had was the young age of the designees, an argument which opposing counsel Senior Advocate Udaya Holla had shot down. He was quoted as saying,.“Why shouldn’t they be made Seniors? They are the future of the profession, not us oldies.”.The judgment comes as a relief to the 15 lawyers whose designation has been uncertain over the last 18 months. From the perspective of the petitioners, it will be interesting to see whether they prefer an appeal to the Supreme Court..Interestingly, a similar PIL filed by Indira Jaising is pending in the Supreme Court. The Senior Advocate aims to do away with differential treatment of advocates on the basis of seniority. That matter is scheduled to come up for hearing again in January..Further details awaited..Here is a timeline of the case:.DateEventFebruary 13, 2014The Full Court resolves to fix norms for designation of Senior CounselMarch 21, 2014Rules framed by committee and placed before Full Court before vacation; matter is deferredJune 30, 2014Notification on designation of four Senior Advocates publishedJuly 14, 2014Notification on designation of eleven more Senior Advocates publishedJuly 25, 2014Writ filed by advocate TN Raghupathy in HC challenging designationsJuly 28, 2014Writ filed by advocate M VeerabhadraiahAugust 4, 2014HC rules that petitioners have no locus to file the writDecember 16, 2014SC directs HC to hear matter on meritsJuly 8, 2015Arguments commence in ACJ SK Mukherjee’s courtJuly 10, 2015Judgment reservedDecember 18, 2015High Court dismisses petitions
