.jpg)
The Court, therefore, dismissed a writ petition seeking at least 30 percent reservation for women lawyers. Designation of a lawyer as a Senior Advocate is a privilege conferred upon such a lawyer based on merit and not a post which a lawyer can claim entitlement to, the Madras High Court ruled last week.
Hence, lawyers cannot claim any reservation for senior designation including based on gender, the High Court said in its judgement passed on December 23.
A bench of Justices M Sundar and N Sathish, therefore, dismissed a writ petition praying that 30 to 50 percent of the total designated senior counsel in any appellate court should be women lawyers.
The petitioner, S Lawrence Vimalraj, a lawyer from Madurai district, had approached the Court seeking reservation for women saying that the same was imperative to ensure greater representation of women lawyers in courts.
The Court, however, held that Vimalraj was neither an aggrieved party himself, nor was the petition a public interest litigation on behalf of others. He therefore, had no locus standi in the matter, the Court said.
The bench examined the petition on merits.
“It is relevant to note that designating an advocate as a Senior Advocate is a matter of honour and privilege conferred upon a member of the Bar. This Court is of the view that such privilege and honour cannot be based on reservation. It must be purely based on the merit cum ability and successful career of the member of the Bar irrespective of the gender of the member at the Bar,” the bench made it clear.
Justice Sundar, who authored the lead verdict, noted that in 2022, a total of 161 lawyers from the Madras High Court had applied for Senior gown. Out of that, only 9 were women. Two of those women applicants did not attend the interaction with a committee headed by the acting Chief Justice, Justice Sundar noted.
Therefore, going by the statistics alone, it was apparent that there was no way to reserve 30 percent of the designation for women lawyers alone.
He further said that the Advocates Act of 1961 prescribes Rules for designation of Senior counsel and proposes four methods for nominating lawyers for such designation. These methods do not make room for any distinction on the basis of gender, the Court highlighted.
In his separate but concurring opinion, Justice Sathish Kumar traced the history of designation of Senior Advocate.
He said that Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act clearly emphasises the senior designation is a distinction conferred upon lawyers and not something that came about automatically upon achieving known or predetermined standards.
“It is a privilege based upon the opinion of the court considering ability, standing at the Bar or special knowledge of or experience in law. Thus, it is a subjective decision, though, based on objective considerations. In such a view of the matter, this court considers it appropriate to hold that such a claim cannot be made as a matter of right,” Justice Kumar said.
Advocates B Ravi Raja, RR Kannan and M Sivakumar appeared for the petitioner.
Panel Counsel for Madras High Court, advocate M Santhanaraman appeared for the respondents Registrars, and other authorities of the high court and the State and Central government.
Senior advocate Chitra Sampath appeared for the intervenor, the Women’s Lawyers Association.