Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
A petition was filed in the Supreme Court challenging the guidelines, particularly Clauses 11 and 14 framed by Calcutta High Court for designating Senior Advocate. The Court refused the petition and asked the petitioner to approach the High Court.
Clause 11 restricts those who are “regularly practicing” in the Calcutta High Court to apply for the position of Senior Advocate. Thus, it has been alleged that the clause discriminates between advocates who have been regularly practicing in the High Court and those who have not been practicing regularly. Thus, this clause is reasonable and it does not fulfil the objective of Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act.
Clause 14 restricts the collection of information of an applicant advocate pro bono work from the Legal Services Authority. The petitioner alleged that this clause is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution because if the Advocates are not enlisted with the legal Services Authority, then the work of the candidate won’t be awarded any points.
It was contended by the petitioner that inviting applications for position of senior advocates from advocates practicing in High Court alone is contrary to the directions by the Court in Indira Jaising vs. Supreme Court of India and Ors. The bench thus, asked the petitioner to withdraw the petition and first approach the High Court.
Objection has been raised by the petitioner as regards the collection of information with respect to the income of the advocate as shown in the past 5 years’ income tax returns. He further added that the fact that second notification required the applicant to furnish complete details with application within 7 days, is unusually hurried.
86540
103860
630
114
59824