Page 1

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

1

Page 2

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.

2

Page 3

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.     

3

Page 4

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

4