Last week, the Karnataka High Court dismissed petitions that challenged the designation of 18 Lawyers as Senior Advocates made in November 2018.
The petition was filed by four Lawyers namely– Puthige R Ramesh, MH Sawkar, Ganesh Krishna Bhat, and BL Acharya – on the ground that the designations were assigned in an arbitrary and irrational manner. On the same note, one more petition was filed by Advocate TN Raghupathy.
The Court while hearing the petition, also looked into the constitutionality of the High Court of Karnataka (Designation of Senior Advocates), Rules, 2018 (Senior Designation Rules) which were issued pursuant to the Supreme Court's judgment of Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India.
The Court, in this regard, held:
"If any of the Rules...framed by the High Court of Karnataka is either inconsistent or contrary to the directions issued by the Apex Court in the case of Indira Jaising (supra), either the same will have to be read down or will have to be ignored and the process of designation of the Advocates as Senior Advocates must be commenced and carried out strictly in terms of the directions of the Apex Court."
The bench found that Rule 11, which gives finality to the views of the Chief Justice, was contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court.
It was also held that the scope of judicial review of decisions of the Full Court in the designation process was limited.
The Court remarked:
"When a writ Court is called upon to exercise its power of judicial review under Article-226 of the Constitution of India against the decision of the Full Court, it cannot go into the merits of the decision and it can examine only the decision making process."
What has been contended in the petitions?
The Lawyers blamed that several provisions of the Senior Designation Rules framed by the High Court have been violated in the conducted designation process and that the process was concluded in a hasty manner after two judges of the High Court were recommended for transfer by the Supreme Collegium. It was also submitted that the Rules do not contemplate for cut-off marks for the applicants, as was done in this case.
It was alleged by them that less deserving Lawyers had been designated as Senior Advocates. Further, they also complained of bias on the part of the Advocate General Udaya Holla who was part of the Permanent Committee for designations.\.
The Court after considering all the arguements and submissions held that there was no reason to interfere in the designations made in November 2018.
The Court though was of the dim view that one of the designees, Lakshmy Iyengar, made certain allegations against Senior Advocate BV Acharya, who is the father of one of the petitioners.
The petitioners had claimed that Iyengar, who secured the max marks in the designation process, has only eight reported judgments to her name which is undoubtedly less than the other experienced Lawyers.
Iyengar in her submission, on the other hand, claimed that Acharya indulged in unethical propaganda against her as he made phone calls to many Senior Advocates. She also alleged that the Senior Lawyer spread the rumor that she had granted sexual favors to ensure her designation.
COURT DECISION
The Court after hearing both the parties noted that absolutely no attempt was made to substantiate the said allegations. In this light, the Court recommended that her designation be reviewed by the Full Court.
"More so when after giving an opportunity to withdraw the allegations against the Senior Advocate, the same was not withdrawn by her. Therefore, we are of the view that her case needs to be considered by the Full Court for review or recall in accordance with the directions of the Apex Court contained in paragraph 73.11 in the case of Indira Jaising (supra)."
Upholding above, the Court placed trust in the point-based system and remarked that the cases of all candidates were duly considered by the Full Court. The Court also dismissed concerns regarding the transfer of Justice Raghvendra Chauhan, who was then part of the Full Court that signed off on the designations.
In the end, the Court stated that the Full Court isn't bound by the overall assessment or points/marks assigned by the Permanent Committee and isn't bound to record reasons for not accepting the dissent expressed by few members.
The judgement has been delivered to Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Justice Mohammad Nawaz on 31-01-2020.
Read Judgement Here:
