<p>The Supreme Court on Friday decided to examine its own procedure of secret voting among judges to award “senior advocate” designations to lawyers.<br /><br /></p>.<p>A three-judge bench, presided over by Justice T S Thakur, issued notice to the SC registrar general, SC Bar Association, SC Advocate on Record Association and Attorney-General Mukul Rohatgi on a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by noted lawyer Indira Jaising.<br /><br />In her plea, Jaising had challenged the “non-transparent and arbitrary” method of designating senior advocates by the top court through voting among judges, saying it was “not akin to beauty contest or election”.<br /><br />Jaising, who was supported by senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Rajeev Dhavan and M N Krishnamani, among others, contended that the current system has resulted in severe discrimination to those who specialise in environmental laws, human rights and PILs.<br /><br />The bench, also consisting of Justices V Gopala Gowda and R Banumathi, initially suggested that Jaising rope in as petitioners those whose pleas for getting the designation was rejected. The court, however, agreed to seek response from different bodies, including the Bar Council of India, after she contended that she was not raising the issue of any individual candidate.<br /><br /><br />“We are not averse to hearing it. Come out with suggestions to make it (the procedure) more objective,” said the bench.<br /><br />She contended that the secret voting conducted by judges in the absence of rules has led to lobbying, resulting in disenchantment among serious lawyers for the status.<br /><br />In her petition, Jaising claimed only one Dalit and two Muslims have been designated senior advocates by the Supreme Court in the last 15 years.<br /><br />“Advocates from backward states like Uttar Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand or Bihar have not been designated at all. Advocates from rural background are totally ignored. Even with regard to a progressive state like Karnataka, only one advocate has been designated after a gap of 25 years. It is relevant to mention that in the last round of designation, out of the five advocates designated, four belonged to one caste,” she claimed.<br /><br />Advocates Sanjay Hegde, Subramanium Prasad, V Mohana, Mahalakshmi Pavani and Rana Mukherjee were designated senior advocates by the full court recently.<br /></p>
<p>The Supreme Court on Friday decided to examine its own procedure of secret voting among judges to award “senior advocate” designations to lawyers.<br /><br /></p>.<p>A three-judge bench, presided over by Justice T S Thakur, issued notice to the SC registrar general, SC Bar Association, SC Advocate on Record Association and Attorney-General Mukul Rohatgi on a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by noted lawyer Indira Jaising.<br /><br />In her plea, Jaising had challenged the “non-transparent and arbitrary” method of designating senior advocates by the top court through voting among judges, saying it was “not akin to beauty contest or election”.<br /><br />Jaising, who was supported by senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Rajeev Dhavan and M N Krishnamani, among others, contended that the current system has resulted in severe discrimination to those who specialise in environmental laws, human rights and PILs.<br /><br />The bench, also consisting of Justices V Gopala Gowda and R Banumathi, initially suggested that Jaising rope in as petitioners those whose pleas for getting the designation was rejected. The court, however, agreed to seek response from different bodies, including the Bar Council of India, after she contended that she was not raising the issue of any individual candidate.<br /><br /><br />“We are not averse to hearing it. Come out with suggestions to make it (the procedure) more objective,” said the bench.<br /><br />She contended that the secret voting conducted by judges in the absence of rules has led to lobbying, resulting in disenchantment among serious lawyers for the status.<br /><br />In her petition, Jaising claimed only one Dalit and two Muslims have been designated senior advocates by the Supreme Court in the last 15 years.<br /><br />“Advocates from backward states like Uttar Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand or Bihar have not been designated at all. Advocates from rural background are totally ignored. Even with regard to a progressive state like Karnataka, only one advocate has been designated after a gap of 25 years. It is relevant to mention that in the last round of designation, out of the five advocates designated, four belonged to one caste,” she claimed.<br /><br />Advocates Sanjay Hegde, Subramanium Prasad, V Mohana, Mahalakshmi Pavani and Rana Mukherjee were designated senior advocates by the full court recently.<br /></p>
