MATHEWS J.NEEDUMPARA AND OTHERS VS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS]  2023 SCC ONLINE SC 1339

MATHEWS J.NEEDUMPARA AND OTHERS VS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS]  2023 SCC ONLINE SC 1339

CHOPPALI .VENKATA KALYANI, (DR. B R AMBEDKAR COLLEGE OF LAW, ANDHRA UNIVERSITY)

  1. ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

 This case was related to rights and privileges of senior advocates as well as the designation of senior advocates. Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution are involved in this case. Sections 16 and 23(5) of the Advocates Act, 1961, are involved in this case.

Here, the petitioner is practicing as an advocate in the Supreme Court of India. He argued that all are equal before the law according to the Indian Constitution, so why should special privileges and rights be given to Senior Advocates? Needumpara and other advocates who are practicing as advocates filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution for a declaration that the designation of advocates as senior advocates under Section 16 and 23(5) of the Advocates Act, 1961, as well as under Rule 2 of Order IV of Supreme Court Rules, 2013, creating special rights, privileges, and status not available to ordinary advocates, is unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. It will also affect meritorious lawyers.   According to the Advocates Act, 1961, advocates can be classified into 2 types: senior advocates and other advocates. Those who are working in the Supreme Court and High Court confer senior designation. Section 2(a) of the Advocates Act, 1961 d”an advocate as a person who has enrolled in any bar” according to this act. On May 19, 1961, this act was passed by the parliament. This act has 60 sections and contains 7 chapters. This case dealt with the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, Rule 2 of Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.

Keywords: Section 16, section 23(5) of advocates act 1961, Article 14 of the Indian constitution, Article 19 of the Indian constitution, Article 21 of the Indian constitution, Designations , Rights and privileges of senior advocates, Advocates, The supreme court rules, 2013, The contempt of courts act,1971

  1. CASE DETAILS:
Judgement Cause TitleMathews j.Needumpara  and others vs. .union of India and others
Case NumberWrit petition Number (c):32 of 2023
Judgement Date16/10/2023
CourtSupreme court of India
Quorum\ Justice Mr.Sanjaykishankushal Justice Mr.Ravikumar Justice Mr.Sudhanshu Dhulia  
AuthorJustice Mr.Sanjaykishankushal
Citation2023 SCC Online SC1339
Legal Provisions InvolvedArticle 14 and 32 of Indian constitution, Section 16 and 23(5) of Advocates Act ,1961 ,Rule 2 of Order Ⅳ of the Supreme court Rules,2013.
  1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT:

This case was totally dealt with Articles 14, which speak about the right to equality. In simple words, it speaks about all the citizens, 19, 21 of the Indian Constitution. It dealt with the Advocates Act, 1961, the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, and the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It speaks about rights, designations, and privileges of the Advocates Act, 1961. The petitioner contended that in the case of Indira Jaisingh vs. Supreme Court of India, the court said that there must be implications and formulations regarding sections 16, 23(5) of the Advocates Act, 1961.

The petitioner was sentenced for 2 years for doing a wrong act, and the court imposed a sentence on him. The constitutional validity has been challenged regarding fundame td .of this court said that if any decision we said that classification is proper then it must be based on the reason but not arbitrary if we are  taking the second hand  the reason need not be a good one and it is immaterial. And the court again observed that the legislation had a broad discretion in the matter of legislation.  This act does not discriminate the advocates .ntal rights in the case of State of A.P. v. McDowell & Co. [(1996) 3 SCC 709]. What type of classification was made by the court in the previous judgments is now settled in the catena of decisions in the case of Union of India v. Nitdip Textile processors l.   The court stated that if a decision asserts a classification is proper, it must be based on reason rather than being arbitrary. When considering the second classification, the reason does not have to be good, and it is immaterial. The court also noted that the legislation had broad discretion in the area of legislation. This act does not discriminate against advocates.

  1. FACTS OF THE CASE:

Here The petitioner is practicing as an advocate in the Supreme Court of India. They argued that everyone is equal before the law according to the Indian Constitution, so why should special privileges and rights be given to senior advocates? Needumpara and other advocates practicing as advocates filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution for a declaration that designating advocates as senior advocates under Section 16 and 23(5) of the Advocates Act, 1961, as well as under Rule 2 of Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, creating special rights, privileges, and status not available to ordinary advocates, is unconstitutional and violates Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.

This will affect meritorious lawyers. According to the Advocates Act, 1961, advocates can be classified into two types: senior advocates and other advocates. Those working in the Supreme Court and High Court receive senior designation.Section 2(a) of the Advocates Act,1961 defines Advocate A person who has enrolled in any bar according to this act is known as advocate. On May 19 ,1961 this act was passed by the parliament. This act has 60 sections and it contains 7 chapters. This case dealt with the Supreme court Rules,2013 Rule 2 of order Ⅳ of Supreme court Rules,2013.

LEGAL ISSUES RAISED:

  1. Whether the classification of Advocates under Section 16 and 23(5) of Advocates act, 1961 ,rule 2 of Order Ⅳ of Supreme rules,2013 is the violative of Article  14 Indian constitution ?
  2. Whether the act really showed any variation between senior and junior  advocates ?
  3. Whether this act has given any special status to senior advocates as mentioned by the petitioner?

 
PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS:
The petitioner stated that the Designation of senior advocates under section 16 .23(5) of Advocates act, 1961 of the Act was illegal and unconstitutional and it is a clear violation of fundamental rights (Article 14,19,21)  of the Indian constitution.It was also stated that special privileges and status was provided only for the a class of advocates which are not available to all the ordinary advocates making it unconstitutional in nature.So this eventually resulted in dominance class of advocates over the other  laudable advocates leaving them behind unfair treatment.

  • The petitioner stated that the Supreme court in the previous case of  Indira Jai Singh vs UOI through secretary general and others one, upheld the provisions of the aforesaid act designation of advocates as a senior advocates.it could further  in the reliance of aforesaid provisions which is unfair in nature would amount to the enactment of judicial legislation.
  • The petitioner contended that we cannot adopt the English law or Roman law which is feudal in nature which was followed back from 18th century.
  • It is further contended by the petitioner destroyin the foremost of the afore said act which aims  single unified bar for the entire country.
  • The petitioner contended that the lawyers have lost the faith in the system of merit ,character knowledge  found that  granted by the court them a title of senior advocate  is alone treated by them as a sign of prosperity in their profession.
  • Even politicians and other high ranking bureaucrats have their desire to get their kinfolk as senior Advocates.
  • The petitioner also submitted that the present petition  is filed for ensuring the judicial transparency sought to take over the proceedings initiated by the petitioners.
  •  The Above act was come into existence to smoothen the working of legal system. And the act is completely destroys the laudable purpose .The Lawyers shouldn’t go extreme dishonor of having to apply for the designation.

RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS:

A)Legal provisions involved in this case:

 THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA-

ARTICLE14:“The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.”

ARTICLE 19:Freedom of Speech and Expression: “Article 19 of the Constitution provides freedom of speech which is the right to express one’s opinion freely without any fear through oral/written/electronic/broadcasting/pres”

“SECTION 16. Senior and other advocates.—

(1) There shall be two classes of advocates, namely, senior advocates and other advocates.

(2) An advocate may, with his consent, be designated as senior advocate if the Supreme Court or a High Court is of opinion that by virtue of his ability [standing at the Bar or special knowledge or experience in law] he is deserving of such distinction

“ (i) senior advocates shall have pre-audience over other advocate.

(3) Senior advocates shall, in the matter of their practice, be subject to such restrictions as the Bar Council of India may, in the interest of the legal profession, prescribe.

 (4) An advocate of the Supreme Court who was a senior advocate of that Court immediately before the appointed day shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be a senior advocate: [Provided that where any such senior advocate makes an application before the 31st December, 1965, to the Bar Council maintaining the roll in which his name has been entered that he does not desire to continue as a senior advocate, the Bar Council may grant the application and the roll shall be altered accordingly.”

SECTION 23. Right of pre-audience.— (5) Subject as aforesaid—

ates, and (ii) the right  of pre-audience of senior advocates inter se and other advocates inter se shall be determined by their respective seniority.”

SECTION 24A: “It states that a person, who is convicted of an offence which involves moral turpitude, cannot be enrolled as an advocate. This applies till two years of elapsing since the expiry of the sentence. While this is a disqualification for enrolment, the Supreme Court has held that if the disqualification is incurred after enrolment then the advocate must be disbarred for two years.”

SECTION 29: “This Section states that advocates are the only recognised class of persons who are entitled to practise law. From the day they are appointed, only the class of ‘advocates’ are allowed to practise the profession of law.”

SECTION 30: “This Section defines the right of advocate to practise. This Act allows an advocate, the right to practise throughout the territory, before all the courts and tribunals.”

SECTION 35: “This Section defines the punishment of advocates for misconduct. It states that when a receipt of a complaint is submitted or a State Bar Council has reason to believe that any advocate on its roll has been guilty of professional or other misconduct, then it shall refer the case for disposal to its Disciplinary Committee. The Disciplinary Committee of a State Bar Council would then fix a date for the hearing of the case and shall cause a notice thereof to be given to the advocate concerned and to the Advocate-General of the State.”

JUDGEMENT:

The court said that in the case of Indira Jai Singh vs. Supreme Court of India, what type of provisions are mentioned in this act regarding the designation of senior advocates and advocates that are provided illegally, leading to judicial activism. Not only this, but there should also be alterations and changes in the above-mentioned act. The court also stated that the petitioner’s argument was inappropriate. The petitioner’s arguments completely discriminate against the lawyers and the working system of lawyers; he insults the entire judiciary system. It was alleged that the lawyers in the post-liberalization period were not recognized for their knowledge and skills but for their wealth and connections. The petitioner did not stop his allegations on lawyers; the bench had lost its patience as well as self-reliance. The petitioner not only accuses advocates but also government officials and bureaucrats. He continues to blame meritious lawyers. It is not at all correct to spoke like this about advocates and senior advocates, it is a duty of every citizen should give respect the others. Petitioner  had crossed his limits here the  court was ready to take action against petitioner  under the Contempt of courts act,1971 and the court declared  ineligible and he doesn’t had chance to argue in the court.

The court found that the arguments made by the petitioner completely lack value and apology; the petitioner made allegations against all kinds of professionals and bureaucrats. Due to his allegations, people think that there is no justice happening in the courts. No one is ready to enter the legal profession, as they don’t show interest. This will impact the youngest lawyers, some of whom come from national universities and schools.

If any provision violates the fundamental rights or any provision of the Indian Constitution, it may affect people and not just the provision. The court referred to this point in the case of Public Services Tribunal Bar Association VS. State Of UP and State Of A.P. vs. Mcdowell. The classification of advocates and senior advocates under section 16 should be made by the legislature. The legislature has all powers to make any law for such classifications; the classification must have a reason, though the reason does not need to be a good one. The court dismissed the petition without any costs awarded.

RATIO DECIDENDI :

  • The court said that in the case of  Indira Jai Singh vs Supreme Courtof India, what type of provisions said in this act regarding designation of senior advocates and advocates which are provided illegally and that leads to judicial activism. Not only this but also there should be   alterations and wording in the above said act. The court also stated that arguments  of the petitioner was in inappropriate way. The arguments of the petitioner completely discriminating the lawyers and the working system of lawyers he insults the  entire judiciary system. It was alleged that the lawyers in the post liberalisation period there not found for their knowledge and skills but for the manifestation wealth and propinquity.
  • The court found that the arguments made by the petitioner completely lack of value and apology, made allegations on all kinds of professionals and bureaucrats. because of his allegations people think that there is no justice happen in the courts . And no one is ready to enter into legal profession   they doesn’t show interest to enter into legal profession. It will impact on youngest lawyers and some of them come from nation la universities and schools. Classification of advocates doesn’t violates the principles the Indian constitution.
  • The court dismissed the petition with no order as to costs.

CONCLUSION& COMMENTS:

In my opinion, there is no classification between advocates and senior advocates in the Advocates Act, 1961. I would like to recommend that there should be a committee/commission to take action against this kind of petitioners. I think the classification of advocates does not violate the provisions of the Indian Constitution. These types of lawyers should be dismissed by the Bar Council of India, but it will not affect The Supreme Court Rules, 2013. I would request all lawyers not to raise such petitions because it will affect future generations of lawyers. People do not believe in lawyers and the legal profession.

  • REFERENCES
    •  Important Cases Referred:   
    • Indira jaisingh vs supreme court of india  wp(c) no. 454 OF 2015
    • Public services tribunal bar association vs State of up wp No.803(sb) of 1998  
    • State of ap vs MC Dowell  1996 (3) JT (sc) 679
    • Important Statutes Referred
      • The Advocates act,1961.
      • The contempt of courts act, 1971.
      • The supreme court rules,2013.
      • The Indian constitution.

Leave a Reply