INDIRA JAISING Vs. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY GENERAL AND ORS.
Supreme Court of India (Full Bench (FB)- Three Judge)
Writ Petition (Civil), 454 of 2015, Judgment Date: Jan 02, 2017
R E P O R T A B L E
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (C) NO.454 of 2015
INDIRA JAISING ...Petitioner
Versus
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
THROUGH SECRETARY GENERAL AND ORS. ...Respondents
O R D E R
T.S. THAKUR, CJI.
1. We had on 21st October, 2016 heard learned counsel for the parties
and the interveners at some length and reserved the matter for
pronouncement of orders. An application was in the meantime filed on
behalf of Shri R.R. Nair seeking recall of our order dated 21st October,
2016 for a two-fold reason. Firstly, the application points out that when
the matter was taken-up for hearing on 21st October, 2016 the Court did not
fully hear submissions on behalf of what the application describes as 95%
of the non-designated lawyers. Mr. Nedumpara, advocate, alone was heard
for a short while, but even Mr. Nedumpara was, according to the
application, not in a position to formulate the points on which he wanted
to address this Court during the short time available to him. He was,
therefore, asked to give written submissions in support of his case which
may not be conducive to justice keeping in view the grave importance of the
questions that fall for determination of this Court.
2. Secondly, the application refers to Writ Petition (C) No.6331 of 2016
titled “National Lawyers’ Campaign for Judicial Transparency and Reforms &
Anr. Vs. The Bar Council of India & Anr.” filed in the High Court of Delhi
to challenge the constitutional validity of Sections 16 and 23(5) of the
Advocates Act, 1961. The argument is that hearing of this writ petition
should await the disposal of the said petition which is possible only if
our order dated 21st October, 2016 is recalled and the matter listed for
hearing afresh.
3. In Writ Petition(C) No.6331 of 2016, the constitutional validity of
Sections 16 and 23(5) of the Advocates Act, 1961 which provide the
statutory basis for designation of lawyers as senior advocates appears to
have been challenged. Now, if the source of power for such designation is
itself under challenge it would be more appropriate to hear the matters
together by transferring the petition pending in the High Court to this
Court. This is particularly so because issues touching designation of
lawyers as per the prevalent procedure appears to be causing considerable
dissatisfaction among a section of the bar which fact is evident from the
large number of interventions made in these proceedings and an equally
large number of solutions proposed at the bar for improvement of the
system. A feeling among those opposing the process of designation that
they were not heard fully before the matter was reserved for orders only
adds to their frustration and avoidable misgivings.
4. In the circumstances, it would be more appropriate if the matter is
set down for fuller arguments afresh along with Writ Petition (C) No.6331
of 2016, which is hereby transferred to this Court for hearing and
disposal.
5. In light of what we have said above, our order dated 21st October,
2016 shall stand recalled and the matter set down for final hearing along
with transferred Writ Petition (C) No.6331 of 2016 in the month of
February, 2017. The parties may complete pleadings in the transferred case
during the intervening period.
..................CJI.
(T.S.THAKUR)
....................J.
(DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD)
....................J.
(L. NAGESWARA RAO)
New Delhi;
January 2, 2017