T.N.Raghupathy vs High Court Of Karnataka & Ors
- SCC(2015) 4 SCC 540
- Neutral2014 INSC 872
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A PIL challenging the designation of senior advocates may be maintained by a person who lacks personal interest in the outcome, notwithstanding the lack of direct locus standi in the traditional sense, because issues concerning the designation of senior advocates and the rules governing it are matters of sufficient public importance to warrant consideration on merit by the High Court which has the authority to frame such rules and regulations. The substantive questions raised regarding the designation of senior advocates and the norms to be applied under Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961 are within the exclusive purview of the High Court concerned to consider and decide, and such matters ought not to be dismissed at the threshold on the ground of absence of locus standi without allowing the High Court to examine the merits of the challenge.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Appellant has challenged an interim order passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Petition No. 35106 of 2014 filed in public interest.
Appellant has mainly sought for a writ of mandamus for framing new norms strictly in consonance with the provisions of Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961 in the matter of designation of senior advocates. A writ of certiorari is also sought for quashing notifications dated 30.06.2014 and 14.07.2014 whereby 15 advocates have been designated as senior advocates by the High Court of Karnataka.
In the nature of the order we propose to pass in this case, we do not deem it necessary or proper to go into the various contentions raised by the appellant.
As per the impugned interim order dated 04.08.2014, the High Court has taken the view that the appellant does not have locus standi to file writ petition in public interest. Mr. K.K. Venugopal, Mr. Kapil Sibal, Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, Mr. Aditya Sondhi, learned senior counsel appearing for some of the parties and the other counsel appearing for others before this Court have graciously submitted that the High Court is not right in holding that view. Some of the issues raised in the writ petition require consideration. As rightly pointed out by the learned senior counsel, these are the issues to be considered by the High Court only since it is the High Court concerned which frames the rules/regulations/guidelines regarding the designation of senior advocates. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order with a request to the High Court to consider the matter on merits. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
T.P.(C) No.1150/2014 & T.P.(C) No. 1838/2014 In view of the order passed in Civil Appeal No. 11439/2014 (arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 22725/2014), these transfer petitions have in effect been rendered infructuous.
The transfer petitions are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
........................... J.
(ANIL R. DAVE)
............................J. (KURIAN JOSEPH) New Delhi;
December 16, 2014.
-----------------------
3
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free