1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.687 OF 2021
AMAR VIVEK AGGARWAL & ORS. Petitioners
VERSUS
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA & ORS. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.1077 OF 2021
MANDEEP SINGH SACHDEV Petitioner
VERSUS
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA & ORS. Respondents
WITH
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.1502 OF 2020
IN
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.454 OF 2015
INDIRA JAISING Petitioner
VERSUS
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA & ORS. Respondents
WITH
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.527 OF 2022
IN
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.454 OF 2015
INDIRA JAISING Petitioner
VERSUS
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Respondent
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by Dr.
Mukesh Nasa
Date: 2022.05.05
18:14:04 IST
Reason:
2
WITH
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.709 OF 2022
IN
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.454 OF 2015
INDIRA JAISING Petitioner
VERSUS
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA & ORS. Respondents
AND
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.189 OF 2022
DEV KRISHNA GAUR Petitioner
VERSUS
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Respondent
O R D E R
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.709 OF 2022 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)
NO.454 OF 2015
This application has been preferred by Ms. Indira
Jaising, learned Senior Advocate of this Court praying inter
alia:
a. Clarify Para 73.9 of the judgment dated
12.10.2017 in W.P. (C) No.454 of 2015 reported
in (2017) 9 SCC 766 to the effect that, in case
the Full Court of this Hon’ble Court or any High
Court resorts to secret ballot while designating
Senior Advocate/s, the reasons for resorting to
the said method should be recorded in writing.
b. Direct that this Hon’ble Court or High Courts
shall publish the cut off mark (if any) in the
notice calling upon the prospective applicants
to apply for designation as Senior Advocates.
3
c. Clarify Para 73.7 of the judgment dated
12.10.2017 in W.P. (C) No.454 of 2015 reported
in (2017) 9 SCC 766 to the effect that in
designation of Senior Advocates by this Hon’ble
Court or High Courts, one mark each should be
allotted for every year of practice between ten
(10) to twenty (20) years.”
At this stage, Prayer (c) has been pressed by Ms. Indira
Jaising. In her submission, there may be counsel who have put
in, say 17 to 19 years of practice; but going by paragraph
73.7 of the judgment rendered by this Court in W.P. (C)
No.454 of 2015, both the learned counsel will, at best, be
allocated 10 marks. According to her, one mark each must be
allotted for every year of practice between ten to twenty
years. Resultantly, in two illustrations given hereinabove,
the learned counsel will be entitled to 17 and 19 marks
respectively.
On the other hand, those who have put in more than twenty
years of practice, regardless of the number of years in excess
of twenty years, they would still be entitled to only twenty
marks in terms of paragraph 73.7 of the judgment.
It must be stated here that Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned
Solicitor General has prayed for some time to put in his
response. According to his oral submissions, the very concept
of allocation of marks and interview may require
reconsideration.
4
Since the issues raised by the learned Solicitor General
may go to the root of the entire controversy, we permit him to
put in his written response on or before 09.05.2022.
Learned counsel appearing for various parties are at
liberty to put in their response(s) to the submissions of the
learned Solicitor General within two days thereafter.
All the matters shall thereafter be taken up for hearing
on 12.05.2022.
However, insofar as the submissions raised by Ms. Indira
Jaising with respect to Prayer (c) of Miscellaneous
Application No.709 of 2022 are concerned, we see no reason to
defer the matter. The submissions arise purely on the text of
the judgment as it stands.
We, therefore, clarify the situation and direct that
instead of ten marks to be allocated to a counsel who has put
in between ten to twenty years of practice, the marks be
allocated commensurate with the standing of the person at the
Bar, that is to say, one mark each shall be allocated for
every year of practice between ten to twenty years. Prayer
(c) made in the application is, therefore granted. This
modification shall be effective from the date of this order.
Rest of the prayers made in the Miscellaneous Application
No.709 of 2022 shall be taken up alongwith other matters on
12.05.2022.
5
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.527 OF 2022 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)
NO.454 OF 2015
Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned Senior Advocate submits that this
Miscellaneous Application prays for similar relief as has been
prayed for and granted in Miscellaneous Application No.709 of
2022.
Since similar relief has been prayed for in Paragraph 8
of this miscellaneous application, this miscellaneous
application is also disposed of in aforesaid terms.
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.687 OF 2021; WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.1077
OF 2021; MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.1502 OF 2020 IN WRIT PETITION
(CIVIL) No.454 OF 2015; MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.709 OF 2022 IN
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.454 OF 2015; AND, WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)
No.189 OF 2022
List these matters for further consideration on
12.05.2022.
............................J.
(UDAY UMESH LALIT)
............................J.
(S. RAVINDRA BHAT)
............................J.
(PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA)
New Delhi,
May 04, 2022
