Ref. No.: SBC/MP/Supdt./ 1648/2020 Date: 28.11.2020

To:

1. Hon’ble Shri Justice Sharad Arvind Bobde, Chief Justice of , Supreme Court of India, Tilak Marg, Mandi House, New Delhi, Delhi – 110001.

2. Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Yadav, Acting Chief Justice, of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh – 482001.

Subject: Expeditious Disposal of pending Applications and laying down of a fixed timeline for reception and consideration of Applications received towards ‘Senior Designation’ from .

Respected Sir,

With reference to the subject above stated, the State Bar Council is writing this letter for your kind consideration. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, having its Principal Bench at Jabalpur and other Benches at Indore and Gwalior is facing a problem of disproportionate representation of Designated Senior Advocates compared to overall strength of the Bar. It must be highlighted that out of the strength of Practising &Registered Advocates of 90,000 (Approximate), barely around 40-45 Designated Senior Advocates are in daily active practise in the Courts of Madhya Pradesh. The other senior Advocates who were designated earlier have either been elevated to the Bench or have left the active practise. The list of Senior advocates in active practise at the Bar is annexed as Annexure-1.

For ensuring efficient justice dispensation, the strength of the Designated Senior Advocates should be atleast0.25%of the strength of practising & registered advocates, which comes to minimum of around 225 to 250 across the state, which ranks as being the 4th largest in the Country. The significance of the appalling condition can be gauged clearly from these headcounts.

The presence of Senior Advocates not only helps the High Courts in its efficient functioning, but also contributes phenomenally to the District & Sessions Courts and other Sub-ordinate courts located in Tehsil, blocks, etc. There are many

STATE BAR COUNCIL OF MADHYA PRADESH LETTER – SENIOR ADVOCATE DESIGNATION

PAGE 1 OF 5 reputed Counsels & Practitioners who are serving in the important districts of Bhopal, Ujjain, Rewa, Sagar, etc. in the District Courts and hold expertise in the areas of Civil, Criminal, revenue and other allied fields, but have not been yet identified and considered ever for Senior Designation. Their inclusion must also be given a priority which it deserves.

The Supreme Court in the case of Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India &Ors. [(2017) 9 SCC 766] has observed in the following words:

“29...... The arguments advanced by Shri K.K. Venugopal, the learned for India and Shri R.S. Suri, learned Senior Counsel would seem to suggest that in the process of designation some amount of say of the Bar by including participation of the representatives of the Bar should be provided. The representatives of the Bar can provide valuable inputs to the Hon’ble Judges who may not be, at all times, familiar with the credentials of a person seeking designation as a Senior Advocate. It is urged that this is particularly true in the case of the Supreme Court of India where the Hon’ble Judges hold office for short tenures and may not have had the opportunity to experience the conduct of cases by a particular advocate seeking designation.

* * *

31. ....It is a subjective exercise that is to be performed by the Full Court in as much as a person affected by the refusal of such designation is not heard; nor are reasons recorded either for conferring the designation or refusing the same. But the opinion, though subjective, has to be founded on objective materials. There has to be a full and effective consideration of the criteria prescribed, namely, ability; standing at the Bar, special knowledge or experience in law in the light of materials which necessarily has to be ascertainable and verifiable facts.

* * *

33. ....We are, therefore, of the view that the framework that we would be introducing by the present order to regulate the system of designation of Senior Advocates must provide representation to the community of Advocates though in a limited manner. That apart, we are also of the view that time has come when uniform parameters/guidelines should govern the exercise of designation of Senior Advocates by all Courts of the country including the Supreme Court.

34. .... Insofar as age is concerned, we are inclined to take the view that instead of having a minimum age with a provision of relaxation in an appropriate case it would be better to go by the norm of 10 years practice at the Bar which is also what is prescribed by Article 217 of the Constitution as a condition of eligibility for being considered for appointment as a Judge of the High Court. STATE BAR COUNCIL OF MADHYA PRADESH LETTER – SENIOR ADVOCATE DESIGNATION

PAGE 2 OF 5 35. It is in the above backdrop that we proceed to venture into the exercise and lay down the following norms/guidelines which henceforth would govern the exercise of designation of Senior Advocates by the Supreme Court and all High Courts in the country. The norms/ guidelines, in existence, shall be suitably modified so as to be in accord with the present.

I. All matters relating to designation of Senior Advocates in the Supreme Court of India and in all the High Courts of the country shall be dealt with by a Permanent Committee to be known as "Committee for Designation of Senior Advocates";

II. The Permanent Committee will be headed by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India and consist of two senior-most Judges of the Supreme Court of India (or High Court(s), as may be); the learned Attorney General for India (Advocate General of the State in case of a High Court) will be a Member of the Permanent Committee. The above four Members of the Permanent Committee will nominate another Member of the Bar to be the fifth Member of the Permanent Committee;

III. The said Committee shall have a permanent Secretariat the composition of which will be decided by the Chief Justice of India or the Chief Justices of the High Courts, as may be, in consultation with the other Members of the Permanent Committee;

* * *

V. The Secretariat will publish the proposal of designation of a particular Advocate in the official website of the concerned Court inviting the suggestions/views of other stakeholders in the proposed designation;

VI. After the data-base in terms of the above is compiled and all such information as may be specifically directed by the Permanent Committee to be obtained in respect of any particular candidate is collected, the Secretariat shall put up the case before the Permanent Committee for scrutiny;”

* * *

X.All cases that have not been favourably considered by the Full Court may be reviewed/reconsidered after expiry of a period of two years following the manner indicated above as if the proposal is being considered afresh;”

The Bar is facing severe delays in the process of designation of Senior Advocates, for several reasons including absence of fixed &pre-determined timelines for the conclusion for the process or steps involved therein. It is pointed out with utmost responsibility that applications are kept pending and put on hold without any reasons for more than a year at times and are unreasonably delayed &deferred. Therefore, it becomes necessary to lay down fixed timelines & schedules for the STATE BAR COUNCIL OF MADHYA PRADESH LETTER – SENIOR ADVOCATE DESIGNATION

PAGE 3 OF 5 various stages involved in the process, i.e. call for applications, resolution of queries & clarifications, call for objections from the bar, discussions/deliberations on the applications, and the final outcome of the same. It would be in the substantial benefits of both the Bar & the Bench that this process be undertaken every year regularly concluded in not more than 6 months.

Another problem is that the process of designation is very infrequent & uncertain in the State of Madhya Pradesh. It is beseeched that this exercise should be undertaken yearly, and the whole process should be maintained continuous & constant. The number of designations happening each year may not be more, but the frequency of the exercise should not be reduced.

As per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Indira Jaising (Supra), it is required that there be effective representation of the Bar. It is requested that either the Office Bearer or any Member nominated by State Bar Council should be made a part of Permanent Committee responsible for designating Senior Advocates. The reason being that it is the statutory entity under the Advocates Act 1961 that represents the in general and works for their benefit at the State level. Additionally, one office-bearer (President) of High Court Bar Association may also be given a seat in the Permanent Committee. It is of utmost importance that unrecognised Bar Associations, which are functioning merely as registered societies, but are not affiliated with the State Bar Council, must not be given any role in Permanent Committee, as has been given currently for these bodies neither statutorily (under Advocates Act, 1961) nor actually represent the lawyers in the state, but function as private self styled organisations of few advocates. Therefore, the presence of the office bearers of such unrecognised Bar Associations in the permanent committee is against the letter and spirit of the whole process.

Long-term Practitioners serving the legal profession in important districts having heavy workload of civil/criminal/revenue matters must also be given chance for senior designation and their applications may be allowed for the upliftment of the quality of justice dispensation at the district level. Although the designations allowed every year may be not more than 10-15 in one go, but the rejected cases ought to be reconsidered & reviewed every 2 years, so that the advocates whose applications are rejected, the motivating factor for them to work harder doesn’t disappear. This practise has been specifically directed in the judgment of Indira Jaising (Supra).

As designation process is not taking place frequently& is inherently uncertain, the standard of the Bar is fast deteriorating. This also adversely affects the morale of the lawyers who are performing well in the Courts and meet prerequisites for the designation but are not designated timely due to untimeliness in the process. It is the overall merit, competence, commitment & sincerity to one’s profession which are the real casualty when the whole process is completely indefinite, unplanned & uncertain in STATE BAR COUNCIL OF MADHYA PRADESH LETTER – SENIOR ADVOCATE DESIGNATION

PAGE 4 OF 5 nature. Another problem that arises is that a ‘sentiment of sub-ordination& inferiority’ to the Bench & Judges creeps in amongst the meritorious, competent advocates of the Bar which affects its independence & autonomy, and the relationship between Bar & Bench diverges from that of ‘co-operation’. If the senior designation process is undertaken atleast annually, then the same would also work as a great facilitator & morale booster for the eligible crowd of the Bar to continue working harder, perseveringly& consistently in their profession, which will in turn enhance the quality & standards of legal acumen & intellectual wealth in the bar. ‘A moving wheel always generates mass’& therefore periodic exercises of the senior designation’ shall ensure that meritorious advocates keep working constantly in the profession.

If timelines are prepared for the culmination of the process, it shall help in maintaining independence of the Bar &as also the dignity of the Bench. It is also extremely necessary for the overall development of acumen & legal intellect in the Bar.

We therefore seek your kind consideration in the matter and very humbly request you to take necessary action in this regard including the exercise of suitable amendment of the Senior Designation Rules 2018 framed by the High Court.

Thanking You.

Sincerely,

Dr. Vijay Choudhary Chairman State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh

Copy to : 1. All Hon’ble Judges, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi. 2. All Hon’ble Judges, High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur.

STATE BAR COUNCIL OF MADHYA PRADESH LETTER – SENIOR ADVOCATE DESIGNATION

PAGE 5 OF 5