17 SC 5017 , 2017 (6 )ALD68 , 2017 6 AWC6049 SC , 2018 (3 )BomCR517 , 125 (2018 )CLT295 , 2017 (4 )Crimes184 (SC ), 2017 (II )CLR(SC)1127 , ILR 2017 NULL 5037 , ILR2017 (4 )Kerala421 , 2017 INSC 1031 , 2017 (4 )J.L.J.R.210 , 2017 (5 ) KHC 278 , 2017 (4 )KLT632 , 2018 -1 -LW527 , (2018 )1 MLJ582 , 2017 (4 )PLJR226 , 2017 (12 )SCALE532 , (2017 )9 SCC766 , (2017 )2 SCC(LS)802 , 2017 (9 ) SCJ 656 , [2017 ]144 SCL266 (SC ), [2017 ]10 SCR478 , 2017 (4 )SCT358 (SC ), ,MANU/SC/1306/2017
Ranjan Gogoi#Rohinton Fali Nariman#Navin Sinha#327SC4520Judgment/OrderABR#AIR#ALD#AWC#BomCR#CLT#Crimes#CurLR#ILR (Karnataka)#ILR (Kerala)#INSC#JLJR#KHC#KLT#LW#MANU#MLJ#PLJR#SCALE#SCC#SCC(LS)#SCJ#SCL#SCR#SCTRanjan Gogoi,SUPREME COURT OF INDIA2017-10-1316910,16911,16918,133,140,16914,22568,17153 -->
MANU/SC/1306/2017
True Court CopyTM English
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 454 of 2015, Transferred Case (Civil) No. 1 of 2017, Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 33 and 819 of 2016 (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
Decided On: 12.10.2017
Appellants: Indira Jaising Vs. Respondent: Supreme Court of India and Ors. ..(+)
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Ranjan Gogoi, Rohinton Fali Nariman and Navin Sinha JUDGMENT
Ranjan Gogoi, J.
1. The Petitioner in Writ Petition (C) No. 454 of 2015 is a Senior Advocate designated by the High Court of Bombay in the year 1986. She has been in practice in the Supreme Court of India for the last several decades and has also served as an Additional Solicitor General for the Union of India. The perception of the Petitioner that the present system of designation of Senior Advocates in the Supreme Court of India is flawed and the system needs to be rectified and acceptable parameters laid down has led to the institution of Writ Petition (C) No. 454 of 2015 with the following prayers.
(a) Issue writ order, or direction declaring that the system of designation of Senior Advocates by recently introduced method of vote is arbitrary and contrary to the notions of diversity violating Articles 14, 15 and 21 and therefore, it is unconstitutional and null and void; and
(b) Issue writ order or direction for appointment of a permanent Selection Committee with a secretariat headed by a lay person, which includes the Respondent 4 Attorney General of India, representatives from the Respondent 5 -SCBA and the Respondent 6- AOR Association and academics, for the designation of Senior Advocates on the basis of an assessment made on a point system as suggested in Annexure P8; and
(c) Issue a writ of mandamus or direction directing the Respondent-1 representing Chief Justice and Judges of the Supreme Court to appoint a Search Committee to identify the Advocates who conduct Public Interest Litigation (PIL) cases and Advocates who practice in the area of their Domain Expertise viz.,