INDIRA JAISINGversusSUPREME COURT OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY GENERAL AND ORS.

                             [20 I 7) I S.C.R. 34



A                            INDIRA JAISING
                                     v.
        SUPREME COURT OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY
                   GENERAL AND ORS.

B                    (Writ Petition (C) No.454 of20 I 5)
                            JANUARY 02, 2017
          [T. S.THAKUR, c:J.I., DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD
                  AND L. NAGESWARA RAO, JJ.]
          Advocates Act, 1961 - ss.16, 23(5) - Designation of Lawyers
c   - Application filed seeking recall of the order reserving
    pronouncement on the ground that the Court did not fully hear the
    submissions on behalf of the non-designated lawyers and the present
    writ petition should await the disposal of another writ petition
    pending in High Court in which challenge was made to the validity
D   of ss.16 and 23(5) - Held: Writ petition pending before the High
    Court, challenges the constitutional validity of ss.16, 23(5) which•
    provides the statutory basis for designation of lawyers as senior
    advocates - Since 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
E
    this Court - Order recalled and writ petition set down for final
    hearing along with transferred writ petition.
          CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No.
    454 of2015.
F         Under Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia
           Mukul Rohatgi,A.G., Ms. Pinky Anand, Maninder Singh, P.S.
    Pa!Walia, ASGs, Ms. Indira Jaising, Ms. Meenakshi Arora, J.M. Sharma,
    Ashok Bhan, Dushyant Dave, Amrender Saran, Narender Hooda,.Soli
    J. Sorabjee, Vikas Singh,AbhishekManu Singhvi, Pravin H. Parekh, Sr.
G   Advs., Ms. Anindita Pujari, Meher Dev,. Arun Monga, Ms. Radhika
    Saxena, Raka Bejoy Phonkan, Ms: Neha Tandon, Shailesh Madiyal,
    Rajesh Ranjan, Sudhir Walia, Ajay Sharma, Rajat Singh, M. K.
    Maroria,Adv. B. V. Balaram Das, Annam D. N. Rao, Sudipto Sircar,
    Rahul Mishra, Abhinav Goyal, Sanjai Kumar Pathak, Ms. Aishwarya
    Bhati, R.S. Suri, Sona! Kumar Singh, Arush P~!!!":Jlnder Singh Hooda,
H
                                     34
. INDIRA JAISING v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA THROUGH                            35
              SECRETARY GENERAL AND ORS.

Pravesh Thakur, Shailender Sing, Rajesh Singh Chauhan, Gopal Singh,           A
Mrs. Nandini Gore, Mathews J. Ned um para, A.C. Philip, Anil C. N ., T.
R. B. Sivakumar, V. K. Biju, Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, Ranjan
Mukherjee, K.Y. Kharlyngdoh, Santosh Kumar Tripathi, Yishal Prasad,
Ms. Ritika Sethi:Advs. for the appearing parties.
      The following Order of the Cou11 was delivered                          B
                              ORDER
       T. S. THAKUR, CJ.I. 1. We had on 21" 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       c
order dated 21" October, 2016 for a two-fold reason. Firstly, ·the
application points out that when the matter was taken-up for hearing on
21" October, 2016 the Court did not fully hear submissions on behalfof
what the appli.cation describes as 95% of the non-designated lawyers.
Mr. Nedumpara, advocate, alone was heard for a short while, but even          D
Mr. Nedumpara was, according to the applicatjon, 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.                                                   E

       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              F
argument is that hearing of this writ peiition should await the disposal of
the said petition which is possible only if our order dated 21" October,
2016 is recalled and the matter listed for hearing afresh.
       3. In Writ Petition(C) No.6331 of2016, the constitutional validity
of Sections 16 and 23(5) of the Advocates Act, 1961 which provide the          G
statutory basis for designation of lawyers as senior advocates appears
to have been challenged. Now, if the source of power for such
designation is itselfunder ch al lenge·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
                                                                              H
36              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            (2017] I S.C.R.


A    desig ·tion 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
B
     was reserved for orders only adds to their frustration and avoidable
     misgivings.
              4. In the circumstances, it would lie more appropriate if the matter
       is set down for fuller arguments afresh along with Writ Petition (C)
       No.6331 of2016, which is hereby transferred to this Court for hearing
c    . and disposal.
            5. In light of what we have said above, our order dated 21"
     October, 2016 shall stand recalled and the matter set down for final
     hearing along with transferred Writ Petition (C) No.6331 of20l 6 in the
     month of February, 2017. The parties may complete pleadings in the
D    transferred case during the intervening period.
                                                                    ~•.,,.....,_,,.._~


      Ankit Gyan                                   Matter set down for final hearing.