Petition Objecting to Orissa High Court’s Selection of Senior Advocates was Dismissed by SC2 min read
Published on: 04 September 2022 at 19:10 IST
A petition filed against the decision of Orissa High Court to designate Senior Advocates was dismissed by the Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice U.U. Lalit and Justice Ravindra Bhat.
The petition claimed that the permanent Committee formed by the Orissa High Court was biased and unlawfully constituted.
Furthermore, it was claimed that some of the chosen advocates had been in practice for less than 20 years and received higher ratings than candidates with 20 or more years of experience. This displayed prejudice and an illogical preference for some candidates.
The permanent committee’s recommendations regarding the designation of attorneys who practice in Orissa HC are one of the petition’s main complaints. The permanent committee suggested the names of some candidates after considering the names of all and were left with 40 people who according to the committee were not worthy of being recommended as senior advocates.
It is argued in the petition that the full court should have been informed of the identities of these 40 attorneys. The full court was supposed to make the final decision, however this criterion wasn’t met.
The bench rejects the contention raised by the petitioner stating that the names of all persons including those who were not recommended to be designated were all considered by the full court before final resolution was adopted.
The Court reasoned that, “One of the basic grievances in this petition pertains to the recommendations made by the permanent committee with regards to designation of advocates practicing in Orissa HC. After having considered the names of concerned advocates, the permanent committee recommended some but did not find 40 persons worthy to be recommended for senior advocates. “
“It is submitted that the details of these 40 advocates ought to have been placed before the full court. Final call was to be taken by the full court which requirement wasn’t fulfilled.”
Hence, the bench came to a conclusion to not entertain the Writ Petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition was dismissed.