Revision as of 15:32, 5 November 2016

`Senior advocate' designation

SC wants transparent procedure

Dhananjay Mahapatra, `Judges' evaluation, not degrees and experience, decides sr advocate tag.' Oct 23 2016 : The Times of India

Law degrees from reputed foreign universities and years of practice in courts are no guarantee for a lawyer to earn the `senior advocate' designation from the Supreme Court.

This was stated by a bench of Chief Justice T S Thakur and Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justice L N Rao on Friday in response to allegations that the `senior advocate' designation was being increasingly given arbitrarily to undeserving lawyers through a non-transparent procedure without making public the criteria of evaluation.

The transparency flag was raised by senior advocate Indira Jaising, the first woman to be appointed as a law officer for the Union government during UPA regime. She said it is a perception that senior advocate designations were gained through lobbying and kinship and it has become an elite club restricted to a few.

“Those who have domain expertise in environment, public interest litigations and those who have spent large number of years practising in the Supreme Court do not get considered for the designation,“ she complained and suggested that there should be a codified evaluation process followed by an interview before grant of the designation.

She was supported by senior advocate A M Singhvi who said there should be five or six listed discrete qualiti es for which an advocate should be assessed. There is also a vociferous section of advocates, led by advocate Mathew Nedumpara, opposing the present system of designating senior advocates.

But the bench said it evaluated advocates on a daily basis when they appeared before the judges in the Supreme Court, and took note of their knowledge in law, court craft and standing at the bar -the three cardinal qualities that play a huge role in designating a lawyer as senior advocate.

“Neither degrees from fo reign universities, nor number of years of practice could automatically make a lawyer earn the senior designation,“ the bench said. But with many high courts continuing to confer senior advocate designation on lawyers who did not even practise before that HC, the words of the CJI-headed bench failed to convince the petitioner.

Attorney general Mukul Rohatgi and Supreme Court Bar Association president Dushyant Dave agreed with the court that it was at the discretion of the SC judges to decide who should be designated as senior advocate. However, they said it would be proper to seek views of eminent members of the bar on advocates applying for senior advocate designation.

The bench said it would pass orders on the petition and indicated that it was not averse to making a few changes in the procedure for designating lawyers as senior advocates.

How a few tar a profession

Violent incidents involving lawyers, 1988-2016; Graphic courtesy: The Times of India, February 19, 2016

Delhi: 1988 case dissuades police from action against lawless lawyers

The Times of India, Feb 19 2016

Abhinav Garg

1988 case no excuse for police inaction on lawless lawyers

Observers familiar with Delhi Police's functioning and track record say the force has been wary of handling lawyers' agitations ever since a series of controversial incidents unfolded at Tis Hazari some three decades ago. Trouble began after the police handcuffed a lawyer accused of theft and produced him at a Tis Hazari court. Angry lawyers went on strike and barged into the office of then DCP North -India's first woman IPS officer Kiran Bedi. The police struck back with a massive lathicharge that left several lawyers injured. The police later justified their action saying they took recourse to resolute action to break the advocates' strike and prevent lawlessness in the court complex.

A probe headed by Justice D P Wadhwa differed. Indicting Bedi and other senior police officers of “grave irregularities“, the Wadhwa inquiry faulted the IPS officer for “indiscriminate and un justified“ use of force. Soon, heads rolled, including that of Bedi's who the government shunted out.

Eminent lawyer K K Venugopal represented the Delhi Bar Association in its fight against the police during the legal proceedings that followed. But speaking on the Patiala House outrage, the senior SC lawyer wasn't willing to buy the argument that the 1988 case should hold back the Delhi Police. This, he said, was just an “excuse“ to justify the department's failures.

“They aren't prepared to take action against an MLA indulging in violence. They can allow students and media representatives to be beaten up by lawyers? It is only an excuse that the Tis Hazari incident deterred them. If a police force is posted in a court complex its job is to ensure law and order and rule of law. Who else will you find in court if not lawyers? It is a strange defence,“ the Constitutional expert countered.

His views were shared by others. Senior advocate Dayan Krishnan, who was Special Public Prosecutor for Delhi Police in the Nirbhaya and Nitish Katara cases, too rubbished the excuse. Having briefly been the police's standing counsel in high court, Krishnan is familiar with their functioning. He too refused to accept that police are wary of acting against the errant lawyers.

“Even after the 1988 incident, the police lathicharged lawyers in 2002-03 when a group marched to Parliament. It appears in Patiala House they received instructions not to take any action against those indulging in violence. I don't think Delhi Police is scared to deal with lumpen elements but freedom to act has not been given. Problem is such elements bring a bad name to our entire profession,“ he said.

UP: lawyers strike work for over 100 days a year

Some reasons why lawyers in UP refuse to work.

Dhananjay Mahapatra, In UP, lawyers strike work for over 100 days a year, Oct 13 2016 : The Times of India

State Has 51L Cases Pending In Trial Courts

Even if the strength of judicial officers were to increase from the present 18,000 to 70,000 on CJI T S Thakur's impassioned plea, the staggering pendency of over two crore cases may not be cleared in a hurry , thanks to frequent disruption of work in trial courts due to strikes by lawyers.

Uttar Pradesh has 51 lakh cases pending in trial courts, which accounts for over 25% of total pendency in all states taken together. A ground zero report given to Allahabad high court listed 10 districts where lawyers disrupted trial court work for more than 100 days on an average, every year for the last five years. Even if the number of trial court judges were increased substantially, how would they deal with how would they deal with pendency unless permitted to work by the advocates' associations, asks law commission chairman Justice B S Chauhan.

The report about the working of trial courts in Uttar Pradesh recorded the number of days that work at trial courts in the districts of Muzaffarnagar, Aligarh, Faizabad, Sultanpur, Moradabad, Mathura, Ghaziabad, Balrampur and Chandauli suffereddue to lawyers' strikes between March 1, 2010 and March 31, 2015.

The five-year data is an eye-opener. In Muzaffarnagar, a total of 753 days was lost due to lawyers' strike, which means an average of 150 days a year. In Aligarh, it was 697 days (140 days a year), Agra 696 days (140 days every year), Faizabad 693 days, Sultanpur 603 days, Moradabad 596 days, Mathura 591 days, Ghaziabad 573 days, Balrampur 560 days and Chandauli 524 days.

After discounting weekly and religious holidays, trial courts generally work for an average 250 days a year. If over 100 days are lost due to advocates' strike, it is understandable why the pendency monster refuses to be tamed.

The report prepared by the Allahabad HC, which is now also with the law commission, gave reasons why advocates struck work. The report said: “The registry of the high court has also collected information from the district judges regarding reasons of strikes in their respective districts, which are based on resolutions passed by the bar associations.“

It named a few of them, It named a few of them, which ranged from bomb blast in Army school in Pakistan to lawyers getting tired due to Republic Day programme, rainy day , death of the mother of colleague advocate and moral support to Anna Hazare's movement.

In addition to this, the report said: “Some of the common causes for the strikes in all districts of UP in the last five years are: non-declaration of holidays like Agrasen Jayanti, Basant Panchami, Nagpanchami, Budh Purnima, Bharat Milap, Saraswati Puja, Guru Teg Bahadur Singh Jayanti, Guru Govind Singh jayanti, Makar Sankranti, Ashtami Puja, birth day of Hazrat Mohammad Sahab, Holi Milan and Kavi Sammelan.“

The panel which prepared the report said it found that lawyers resorted to strike on unacceptable and flimsy grounds. “In most of the districts, the strike is virtually institutionalised. Often these strikes are called for some specific actions, where a group of lawyers either does not want a particular case to be taken up or they desire a particular matter to be adjourned.“

International forums

Rajput elected to ILC by UNGA

In major diplomatic victory, Indian lawyer elected to ILC, Nov 05 2016 : The Times of India

UNGA Returns Rajput By Record Vote

In what the government described as a major diplomatic victory for India, 33-year-old Supreme Court lawyer and PhD student Aniruddha Rajput was elected to International Law Commission (ILC) by the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) with a record number of votes. Established by UNGA, the Geneva-based ILC encourages promotion of international law and its codification. Rajput got 160 votes, topping the Asia-Pacific group in the election which was held through secret ballot.

“This is a real honour for me and I want to thank the ministry of external affairs (MEA), especially India's permanent representative to UN Syed Akbaruddin, for their support,“ Rajput told TOI.

Japan's Shinya Murase got the second highest number of votes in the Asia-Pacific group at 148, followed by Mahmoud Daifallah Hmoud of Jordan and Huikang Huang of China with 146 votes each, Korea's Ki Gab Park with 136 votes, Ali bin Fetais Al-Marri of Qatar with 128 votes and Hong Thao Nguyen of Vietnam with 120 votes.

This was the first time that the MEA did not nominate anybody from its pool of lawyers for the membership and instead decided to go with an outsider.

An alumnus of the London School of Economics and Political Science, Rajput was a member of an expert group appointed by the Law Commission of India to study and comment upon the Model Bilateral Investment Treaty 2015 of India, according to his profile submitted to the UN. He has written several books, chapters, articles, conference papers on diverse legal subjects.

The newly elected members will serve five-year terms of office with the Geneva-based body beginning January 2017. The members have been elected from five geographical groupings of African, Asia-Pacific, Eastern European, Latin American and Caribbean and Western European states.

While some have said that Rajput's links with R S S might have had a role in his nomination, which is denied by MEA, he himself said, “International relations is important but member-states of the UN have to vote for the candidate who has recognised competence in international law and the number speaks for itself.“