Delhi High Court
K.R. Chitra vs Supreme Court Legal Services ... on 30 September, 2015
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No.8336/2015
K.R. CHITRA ..... Petitioner
Through: Petitioner in person.
Versus
SUPREME COURT LEGAL SERVICES
COMMITTEE & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
ORDER
% 30.09.2015
1. The petitioner, an Advocate, in response to the invitation by the
respondent No.1 Supreme Court Legal Services Committee (SCLSC) of
applications from Advocates for being empanelled, claims to have in the
year 2012 applied for empanelment as a panel Advocate with the respondent
No.1 SCLSC. The petitioner passed the Advocate on Record (AOR)
examination held by the respondent No. 2 Supreme Court of India in the year
2013 and thereafter applied to the respondent No.1 SCLSC for being
empanelled in the AOR category.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that neither has the respondent No.1
SCLSC taken any decision on the said application of the petitioner nor has
given any response / reply whatsoever to the petitioner.
3. The petitioner availed of the provisions of Right to Information Act,
2005 in this regard and was, vide communication dated 10th June, 2015 of
the respondent No.1 SCLSC informed that her application dated 17th
January, 2014 was placed before the Chairman of the respondent No.1
SCLSC for consideration and the Chairman had been pleased to direct the
same to be forwarded to the Sub-Committee for consideration and the report
of the Sub-Committee was awaited.
4. The petitioner, in response to another RTI query, was on 26th January,
2015 furnished copy of the 53rd Meeting of the respondent No.1 SCLSC held
on 25th November, 2014. In the said Meeting, the applications of Advocates
for empanelment on the panel of the respondent No.1 SCLSC were
considered and on the recommendations of the Sub-Committee, headed by a
senior advocate of the Supreme Court, the respondent No.1 SCLSC
empanelled the advocates mentioned therein. The name of the petitioner does
not find mention therein. The petitioner was similarly furnished the minutes
of the 51st Meeting of the respondent No.1 SCLSC held on 12th March, 2014
empanelling the Non-Advocates on Record, following the same procedure
and in which also the name of the petitioner does not find mention.
5. This petition has been filed, seeking (i) a direction to the respondent
No.1 SCLSC to inform to the petitioner the decision taken on her application
alongwith reasons for keeping her application pending for a long time
period; and (ii) direction to the respondent No.1 SCLSC and to the
respondent No.2 to follow a transparent procedure for empanelling of
Advocates.
6. The petitioner appearing in person has argued, (i) that she has, in
response to the direction earlier issued in this proceeding, placed on record
her application for empanelment; (ii) that she being an Advocate and an
AOR, ought to have been empanelled with the respondent No.1 SCLSC; (iii)
that there is no reason for the respondent No.1 SCLSC not empanelling the
petitioner and (iv) that the respondent No.1 SCLSC should give reasons why
it empanels one Advocate and does not empanel another.
7. Though the petitioner has also sought to urge the reforms which need
to be carried out by the respondent No.1 SCLSC in this regard, but in my
opinion the consideration of the present petition has to be confined to the
cause of action of the petitioner and this Bench cannot foray into the aspect
of public interest and which is not the roster of this Bench.
8. I am of the view that the respondent No.1 SCLSC, as a client in need
of legal assistance, has an absolute choice in the matter of appointment of
Advocates. It cannot be said that the procedure adopted by the respondent
No.1 SCLSC for empanelling Advocates is arbitrary. The appointment of
Advocates is made by the respondent No.1 SCLSC, a broad based body
shown to be comprising of the senior most Judge of the Supreme Court,
Attorney General, Secretary General of Supreme Court, nominees of the
Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Law & Justice and three senior advocates
and two advocates of the Supreme Court on the recommendation of a Sub-
Committee headed by a Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court. It thus
cannot be said that the respondent No.1 SCLSC has not applied its mind or
has acted impartially in the matter of appointment of or selection of its
Advocates or in not opting to have the petitioner as its Advocate.
9. As far as the contention of the petitioner, of no reply having been
given to her and / or of no reasons for appointment or non appointment
having been communicated, is concerned, in my opinion the respondent No.1
SCLSC as a client in need of legal assistance, owes no duty to reply to such
applications or to give reasons for the selection made. If reasons were to be
given, the same, in my view would be an affront to the dignity of a member
of the Bar who has not been empanelled. The respondent No.1 SCLSC,
though as a client of legal services, is entitled to choose its Advocate but has
no right to comment on the professional capability of any Advocate and
which it would necessarily have to do while rejecting the applications of
those who are not selected for empanelment.
10. The petitioner is also not found to be having any right, merely by
being an Advocate / Advocate on Record, to thrust her professional services
on an unwanting client. Supreme Court in R.D. Saxena Vs. Balram Prasad
Sharma (2000) 7 SCC 264 held that a litigant must have freedom to change
his Advocates when he feels that the Advocate is not capable of espousing
his case efficiently or that the conduct of the Advocate is prejudice to the
interest involved in the lis or any other reason. Rather, the action of an
Advocate of soliciting briefs from a Court is considered against the etiquette
of the bar. Reference in this regard may be made to In Re: Mr. A, an
Advocate MANU/SC/0025/1961 holding the action of writing letters
offering services as an Advocate on Record to be in utter disregard of
position as an Advocate and in breach of rules of professional ethics and not
befitting a member of the profession of law. Action of soliciting a brief was
held to be highly improper.
11. The petitioner at this stage states that she having a cause of action
cannot file a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) to set right the malady in the
appointments of Panel Advocates by respondent No.1 SCLSC. However, she
at the same time states that she does not want to pursue her application for
empanelment with the respondent No.1 SCLSC. The petitioner, by stating
that she is not interested in empanelment with the respondent No.1 SCLSC,
is well capable of filing a PIL if so desires.
12. Dismissed.
No costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
SEPTEMBER 30, 2015
sr..
