A bunch of advocates has filed a petition earlier than the Supreme Court difficult the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s notification to designate 19 legal professionals as senior advocates. The matter is anticipated to come back up for listening to subsequent week.
Advocates Amar Vivek Agarwal, Krishan Kumar Gupta and Harbhajan Singh Dhandi, by their counsel Advocate Malak Manish Bhatt, have sought quashing of the High Court’s May 28 notification and segregation of the checklist of senior designations.
The High Court had earlier taken the choice within the assembly of the Full Court in train of the powers conferred below Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961.
The petitioners have submitted that 113 functions have been acquired for the publish of Senior Advocate. However, it was “suddenly on May 19, 2021 that all the applicants” have been surprisingly bodily summoned to the High Court premises [not minding curfew and lockdowns]”
It is additional submitted by the petitioners that “the Full Court under Rule 11, without exceptional circumstances or recording the reasons in writing, resorted to secret ballot. Out of the list of 27 names, 18 were approved. Surprisingly The point of the matter is that without agenda or in the absence of resume, necessary material and synopsis etc. 85 candidates are being placed before the Full Court under Rule 10; for the remaining 85 candidates, the Full Court lists 112 names in the minutes. and shortlisted another candidate from the remaining 85, who incidentally is the wife of a former judge, raising further questions of neutrality.”
“Thus, the fate of 85 such candidates was decided, some of whom with proper, consistent and good practice of 40 years, many of whom have been Additional Advocates General in the past and who have been waiting for the senior post for the last 7 years. are, in a nutshell, decided in a matter of 7 days from May 19 to May 26,” the petitioners additional argue.
The petitioners have argued that the High Court has violated the necessary and binding instructions of the Supreme Court and guidelines 9 to 11 of the foundations made by the High Court. The petition claimed that the ultimate lists or suggestions have been ready illegally and never on the idea of marks/rating and relative benefit and thus the impugned notification is liable to be quashed.
.
With inputs from TheIndianEXPRESS
