Anil Chawla vs High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1450 MP

                                     1                                WP-6827-2020
           The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                      WP-6827-2020
      (ANIL CHAWLA AND OTHERS Vs HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
                                        &
                                   WP-26766-2019
              (P.C. PALIWAL Vs HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

3
Jabalpur, Dated : 09-04-2021
       Heard through Video Conferencing.
       Shri Anil Chawla, petitioner in person in W.P.No.6827/2020.
       Shri    Ashish    Shroti,     Advocate    for    respondent        no.   1   in

W.P.No.6827/2020.

Shri Ajay Raizada, Advocate for the petitioner in W.P.No.26766/2019. Shri B. N. Mishra, Advocate for respondent no. 1 in W.P. No. 26766/2019.

Shri Satyam Agrawal, Advocate for respondent no.2 in both writ petitions.

Writ petition No.6827/2020 has been filed by Mr. Anil Chawla and Ms. Yogita pant and Writ Petition No.26766/2019 has been filed by Mr. P. C. Paliwal.

The petitioners in first writ petition (W.P.No.6827/20) have challenged validity of Rule 9 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Designation of Senior Advocates) Rules, 2008, on the ground that there cannot be any restriction of having practice of minimum 15 years as an Advocate and also there cannot be any requirement of having gross income of not less than 10 lacs per annum from profession shown in the previous three years of the income tax return, for being designated as Senior Advocate.

The petitioner in second writ petition (W.P.No.26766/19) apart from challenging validity of Rule 9 has also assailed validity of Rule 21 (5) of the Rules 2018 which includes Additional Advocate General who is no more than a Government advocate as held by the Supreme Court in M.T. Khan and others vs. Govt. of A.P. and others (2004) 2 SCC 267.

Both learned counsel argued that the Rules are not in conformity with 2 WP-6827-2020 ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Indira Jaisingh vs. Supreme Court of India and others (2017) 9 SCC 766, inasmuch as they are also not in conformity with the Rules framed by the Supreme Court and all other High Courts in the country for the same purpose.

After making arguments at some length, learned counsel have submitted

that they shall make comprehensive representations raising all their arguments, to the High Court on administrative side.

If such representations are made, the High Court shall on administrative side consider the same keeping in view the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court and also taking into consideration the rules framed by various High Courts.

With the aforesaid, both writ petitions are disposed of.

            (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)                                  (SANJAY DWIVEDI)
             CHIEF JUSTICE                                            JUDGE


    JP
Digitally signed by JITENDRA
KUMAR PAROUHA
Date: 2021.04.10 12:22:24
+05'30'