SC upholds 2019 HC decision to redesignate 5 lawyers as senior advocates
upheld the Orissa high court's 2019 decision to designate five lawyers as senior advocates, setting aside a 2021 judicial order that had quashed the appointments.
A bench of Justices R Mahadevan and J B Pardiwala on Monday ruled that the full bench of the high court had acted within its powers under the Orissa (Designation of Senior Advocate) Rules, 2019, when it conferred the designation on the advocates on Aug 17, 2019.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
The designations were notified via an administrative order on Aug 19 the same year.
But on May 10, 2021, the high court, while hearing a petition filed by an advocate, ruled that the process followed in 2019 was legally flawed and beyond the court's authority. That order invalidated the appointments.
However, the top court disagreed with the view. "The order passed by the high court on its judicial side on May 10, 2021 is set aside.
The designation of five lawyers as senior advocates notified on Aug 19, 2019 is held to be valid," the SC said in its July 14 judgment.
The ruling clarified that the high court's full bench is empowered to designate advocates suo motu, without requiring any application or proposal, if it believes the individual deserves recognition.
In its remarks, the Supreme Court underlined the importance of merit in the conferment of the senior advocate title.
"Before parting, we wish to observe that the designation of a senior advocate is a mark of distinction granted by the court in recognition of exceptional legal acumen and advocacy. It is not conferred as a matter of right, nor can any advocate claim it merely on the basis of seniority, experience, or popularity.
"
The SC bench added, "Courts are not expected to grant this status arbitrarily or as a matter of favour. At the same time, the process for designation must be merit-based, transparent, fair, and free from personal preferences or informal influences."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
9 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
‘Rahul must stop irresponsible remarks': Rijiju after SC questions Congress leader
Union minister Kiren Rijiju on Monday hit out at Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, saying the latter 'must stop irresponsible remarks'. This comes after the Supreme Court, earlier on Monday, questioned the Congress leader over claims that China had occupied Indian land after the clash between the countries' armies in the Yangsi region of Arunachal Pradesh in 2022. Rijiju said that Rahul had 'repeatedly claimed' that China had occupied Indian territory, despite the armed forces, government, and defence ministry stating otherwise.(ANI Grab ) 'How does he know the Chinese occupied 2000 square kilometres of land?' the top court asked, while adding that a 'true Indian' would not say this. "When there is a conflict across borders... can you say all this?" a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih questioned. Rijiju said that Rahul had 'repeatedly claimed' that China had occupied Indian territory, despite the armed forces, the Government of India, and the Ministry of Defence stating otherwise. 'This dispute dates back to before 1962, and there are occasional confrontations during patrolling, something clearly visible in several videos showing face-offs between the Indian and Chinese armies—largely because the boundary remains undemarcated,' PTI news agency quoted Rijiju as saying. The union minister added that by 'asserting' that China had occupied 2000 kilometres of Indian land, Rahul 'continues to make baseless statements'. He said that the government had urged the Wayanad MP to not speak against the nation 'without factual backing'. Rijiju added that 'there must be a pause in such rhetoric' following the SC's question to the Congress leader. 'We consider ourselves responsible citizens, and Rahul Gandhi is expected to be one as well,' Rijiju said, adding that matters concerning national security must not be discussed in a way that 'demoralises the armed forces'. 'I hope that, going forward, Rahul Gandhi reflects on his words, and the Congress Party also reassesses its approach. After the Supreme Court's remarks, this course correction is not just expected, it is necessary,' Rijiju said, according to PTI.
Economic Times
9 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Setback for UP as SC mulls putting in abeyance nod to Banke Bihari Temple Corridor
Banke Bihari temple (File photo) In a setback to the Uttar Pradesh government, the Supreme Court on Monday said it would keep in abeyance its May 15 nod to the ambitious scheme to develop the Shri Banke Bihari Temple Corridor at Vrindavan in Mathura for the benefit of devotees as main stakeholders were not heard. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi deprecated the approach of the state government in moving the court in "clandestine manner" and questioned the hurry for enacting an ordinance Uttar Pradesh Shri Bankey Bihari Ji Temple Trust Ordinance, 2025 to take over the management of the ancient temple. The top court said it would appoint a committee headed by a retired high court or district judge to manage the affairs of the temple in the interest of lakhs of devotees besides including the main stakeholders in the managing committee. The bench told Additional Solicitor General K M Nataraj, appearing for the Uttar Pradesh government, "Less said the better. How do you justify the directions passed by the court? The state in the most unfortunate way came to the court in the most clandestine manner without informing the court receiver or stakeholders (members of the family who claimed to be the owner of the temple). Get the directions behind their back and set aside the order of the high court. This is the least thing we expect from the state." The top court at present is not adjudicating the constitutionality of the ordinance and the high court will look into it. The bench asked Nataraj to seek instructions while deciding to pass an order on August 5 to keep the May 15 order in abeyance and appoint someone as the managing trustee of the temple to look after the daily affairs. "This is the land of lord Krishna. He was the first mediator known to the world. Let's find a way out to resolve the dispute pending for years and develop the area in the interest of lakhs of devotees who visit these iconic religious places. Basic amenities need to be created as nowadays religious tourism is one of the biggest sources of revenue," the bench said. It assured all the stakeholders, including several warring factions, who claim to be owners of the temple that some responsible person would be given charge to manage the affairs of the temple aside from a mandate to develop the adjoining areas and small temples in nearby localities. When Nataraj pointed that one person claiming to be from the Goswami community moved the top court for intervention but was not heard by the community, the bench asked if the court-receiver was in-charge of the temple management, why was the person not heard and a response from other warring factions not sought. The top court further questioned the government of wanting to acquire five-acre land for developing a holding area from the temple funds and not use its money. "What stopped you from acquiring the entire land and properties from your corpus in public interest? What was the tearing hurry in enacting the ordinance, when the matter was sub-judice? Providing basic amenities and developing the area is the duty of the state. There are numerous instances where the state's participation has helped in developing the religious places like in Golden Temple in Amritsar," the bench said. Senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for members of the managing committee, said the order was passed without hearing them and as it was a private temple, they were required to be heard. The bench said the term "private temple" was a misnomer and the state was trying to acquire the land for the benefit of lakhs of devotees who visit the temple every year. The top court posted the matter for August 5 while asking Nataraj to seek instructions and clarifying that the constitutionality of the ordinance would be decided by the high court for which it would modify the May 15 order. The managing committee members and other petitioners who sought the recall or modification of the May 15 order were asked to give certain suggestions with respect to the management of the affairs of the historic temple. The plea, filed through advocate Tanvi Dubey, of the management committee of the Thakur Shree Banke Bihari Ji Maharaj Temple in Mathura, challenges the ordinance, which vested the control of the shrine's administration with the state. On May 15, the top court allowed an impleadment application filed by the state and paved the way for a Uttar Pradesh government scheme to develop the corridor.
Time of India
27 minutes ago
- Time of India
Setback for UP as SC mulls putting in abeyance nod to Banke Bihari Temple Corridor
Live Events (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel In a setback to the Uttar Pradesh government , the Supreme Court on Monday said it would keep in abeyance its May 15 nod to the ambitious scheme to develop the Shri Banke Bihari Temple Corridor at Vrindavan in Mathura for the benefit of devotees as main stakeholders were not heard.A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi deprecated the approach of the state government in moving the court in "clandestine manner" and questioned the hurry for enacting an ordinance Uttar Pradesh Shri Bankey Bihari Ji Temple Trust Ordinance, 2025 to take over the management of the ancient top court said it would appoint a committee headed by a retired high court or district judge to manage the affairs of the temple in the interest of lakhs of devotees besides including the main stakeholders in the managing bench told Additional Solicitor General K M Nataraj, appearing for the Uttar Pradesh government, "Less said the better. How do you justify the directions passed by the court? The state in the most unfortunate way came to the court in the most clandestine manner without informing the court receiver or stakeholders (members of the family who claimed to be the owner of the temple). Get the directions behind their back and set aside the order of the high court. This is the least thing we expect from the state."The top court at present is not adjudicating the constitutionality of the ordinance and the high court will look into bench asked Nataraj to seek instructions while deciding to pass an order on August 5 to keep the May 15 order in abeyance and appoint someone as the managing trustee of the temple to look after the daily affairs."This is the land of lord Krishna. He was the first mediator known to the world. Let's find a way out to resolve the dispute pending for years and develop the area in the interest of lakhs of devotees who visit these iconic religious places. Basic amenities need to be created as nowadays religious tourism is one of the biggest sources of revenue," the bench assured all the stakeholders, including several warring factions, who claim to be owners of the temple that some responsible person would be given charge to manage the affairs of the temple aside from a mandate to develop the adjoining areas and small temples in nearby Nataraj pointed that one person claiming to be from the Goswami community moved the top court for intervention but was not heard by the community, the bench asked if the court-receiver was in-charge of the temple management , why was the person not heard and a response from other warring factions not top court further questioned the government of wanting to acquire five-acre land for developing a holding area from the temple funds and not use its money."What stopped you from acquiring the entire land and properties from your corpus in public interest? What was the tearing hurry in enacting the ordinance, when the matter was sub-judice? Providing basic amenities and developing the area is the duty of the state. There are numerous instances where the state's participation has helped in developing the religious places like in Golden Temple in Amritsar," the bench advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for members of the managing committee, said the order was passed without hearing them and as it was a private temple, they were required to be bench said the term "private temple" was a misnomer and the state was trying to acquire the land for the benefit of lakhs of devotees who visit the temple every top court posted the matter for August 5 while asking Nataraj to seek instructions and clarifying that the constitutionality of the ordinance would be decided by the high court for which it would modify the May 15 managing committee members and other petitioners who sought the recall or modification of the May 15 order were asked to give certain suggestions with respect to the management of the affairs of the historic temple The plea, filed through advocate Tanvi Dubey, of the management committee of the Thakur Shree Banke Bihari Ji Maharaj Temple in Mathura, challenges the ordinance, which vested the control of the shrine's administration with the May 15, the top court allowed an impleadment application filed by the state and paved the way for a Uttar Pradesh government scheme to develop the corridor.
