# Vishnu Behari Tewari v. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 9 ILRA 806
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-09-03
- **Case number:** Writ - C No. 17736 of 2019
- **Bench:** Saumitra Dayal Singh, Donadi Ramesh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vishnu-behari-tewari-v-the-high-court-of-judicature-at-allahabad-ors-52518
- **Pages:** 32

## Headnote

Advocates Act, 1961 - Section 16 - Designation
of Senior Advocate Rules, 2018, Rule 6(5), Rule
6(6) - Conferment of distinction of Senior
Advocate - Rule 6 (5) of the Rules created a
discretion with the Permanent Committee to
waive personal interaction "if it so desires".
Rules 6 (5) clearly allow for waiver of interview.
Permanent Committee chose to waive the
requirement of interview in terms of Rule 6 (5)
of the statutory Rules. Evaluation of the valid
applications remained to be made against 75
marks, in face of personal interview of 25
marks, waived. Permanent Committee took a
decision to shortlist the suitable applicants from
the list of 95 applicants, on the strength of
marks obtained by them on their individual
applications, which was legally permissible. Cutoff marks were permissible to be prescribed and
those were prescribed under a resolution of the
Permanent Committee, unanimously passed by
all five members. The Permanent Committee did
not lack that inherent jurisdiction. The criteria to
shortlist all applicants based on qualifying marks
fixed
by
the
Permanent
Committee
was
rationale, fair, objective and a transparent
criteria. Permanent Committee has power to
evolve cut-off marks to shortlist the total
number
of
applicants
recommended
for
conferment of distinction as Senior Advocates.
Rule 6(6) of the Rules only required the
Permanent Committee to place before the Full
Court its Assessment Report. That did not
mandate or require the Permanent Committee
to disclose or place before the Full Court, the
exact marks awarded to individual applicants, in
the process of short-listing adopted by it. Issue
of lack of interview may have arisen only at the
instance of those short-listed, but not the rest.
Petitioners not being shortlisted on the basis of
cut-off marks prescribed, they never earned a
right to be interviewed by the Permanent
Committee.(Para 76, 78, 82)

Dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,719 of 101,030. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39719 for what follows._

806 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2024) 9 ILRA 806
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.09.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J.
THE HON'BLE DONADI RAMESH, J.

Writ - C No. 17736 of 2019
With
Writ - C No. 19326 of 2019

Vishnu Behari Tewari ...Petitioner
Versus
The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
& Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Vishnu Behari Tewari (In Person)

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Amit Kumar Srivastava, Sri Hritudhwaj
Pratap Sahi, In Person, Sri Sankalp Narain,
Sri Sanjiv Singh, Sri Chandan Sharma, Sri
Ashish Mishra, Sri G.K. Singh (Sr. Adv.)

Advocates Act, 1961 - Section 16 - Designation
of Senior Advocate Rules, 2018, Rule 6(5), Rule
6(6) - Conferment of distinction of Senior
Advocate - Rule 6 (5) of the Rules created a
discretion with the Permanent Committee to
waive personal interaction "if it so desires".
Rules 6 (5) clearly allow for waiver of interview.
Permanent Committee chose to waive the
requirement of interview in terms of Rule 6 (5)
of the statutory Rules. Evaluation of the valid
applications remained to be made against 75
marks, in face of personal interview of 25
marks, waived. Permanent Committee took a
decision to shortlist the suitable applicants from
the list of 95 applicants, on the strength of
marks obtained by them on their individual
applications, which was legally permissible. Cutoff marks were permissible to be prescribed and
those were prescribed under a resolution of the
Permanent Committee, unanimously passed by
all five members. The Permanent Committee did
not lack that inherent jurisdiction. The criteria to
shortlist all applicants based on qualifying marks
fixed
by
the
Permanent
Committee
was
rationale, fair, objective and a transparent
criteria. Permanent Committee has power to
evolve cut-off marks to shortlist the total
number
of
applicants
recommended
for
conferment of distinction as Senior Advocates.
Rule 6(6) of the Rules only required the
Permanent Committee to place before the Full
Court its Assessment Report. That did not
mandate or require the Permanent Committee
to disclose or place before the Full Court, the
exact marks awarded to individual applicants, in
the process of short-listing adopted by it. Issue
of lack of interview may have arisen only at the
instance of those short-listed, but not the rest.
Petitioners not being shortlisted on the basis of
cut-off marks prescribed, they never earned a
right to be interviewed by the Permanent
Committee.(Para 76, 78, 82)

Dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. Indira Jaising Vs Supreme Court of India &
anr., (2017) 9 SCC 766 [Indira Jaising (Ist
case)]

2. Ms. Indira Jaising Vs Supreme Court of India,
AIR Online 2023 SCC 24 [ Indira Jaising (IInd
case)]

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal
Singh, J.
&
Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh, J.)

1. Heard Sri Vishnu Behari Tewari, in
person and Sri Rohit Kumar, learned
counsel for the petitioner in Writ-C
No.19326 of 2019 and Sri G.K. Singh,
learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri
Ashish Mishra & Sri Chandan Sharma,
learned counsel for the Allahabad High
Court.

2. Matter has been received upon
nomination made. Since one of us was
9 All. Vishnu Behari Tewari Vs. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad & Ors.
807
party to the Full Court Meeting held on
18.05.2019, that fact was clarified to the
parties,
on
08.04.2024.
All
parties
consented that the matter may be heard by
this bench. Accordingly, it has been
proceeded.

3. On 25.09.2019, the present
petition was filed for the following relief:

 (i) TO ISSUE a writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari
quashing the minutes of the meeting of
Permanent Committee constituted under
sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of The Designation of
Senior Advocate Rules, 2018 held on
10.05.2019 at 4.30 P.M. in the Committee
Room at Allahabad High Court;

 (ii) TO ISSUE writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
declaring the words "if it is so desires may
in the sub-rule (5) of Rule 6 of The
Designation of Senior Advocate Rules,
2018 is contravention of the paragraph
No.73.7 of the Apex Court judgment cited
in (2017) 9 Supreme Court Cases: 766
"Indira Jaising vs. Supreme Court of India
though Secretary General & others", as
ultra vires being arbitrary, discriminatory,
unjust, illegal and violative of Article 14,
15 & 21 of the Constitution of India,

 (iii) TO ISSUE a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
restraining the Chief Justice of the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad not to
designate the approved Advocates by Full
Court Meeting held on 18.05.2019 as
Senior Advocate under Section 16 of the
Advocates Act, 1961;

 (iv) TO ISSUE a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
restraining the Registrar General of the
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad not
to notify the designation of Advocate as
Senior Advocate in compliance of sub-rule
(2) of Rule 7 of the Designation of Senior
Advocate Rules, 2018;

 (v) TO ISSUE any other writ
order or direction which this Hon'ble Court
may
deem
fit
and
proper
in
the
circumstances of the case;

 (vi) TO AWARD cost of the writ
petition to the petitioner."

4. Challenge raised in the present
petition,
amongst
others,
is
to
the
proceedings, resolution and consequential
action arising from the Full Court Meeting
of this Court dated 18.05.2019. Since both
writ petitions have been heard together, for
the sake of convenience, we refer to the
facts in Writ - C No. 17736 of 2019, as
that petition has been argued first.

5. Section 16 of the Advocates
Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the
Act) provides for designation of Senior
Advocates. It reads as under:

"Section
16
of
the
Advocates Act states the following:

(1) There shall be two
classes of advocates,
namely,
senior
advocates and other
advocates.

 (2) An advocate may, with his
consent, be designated as senior advocate
if the Supreme Court or the High Court is
of opinion that by virtue of his ability,
[standing at the Bar or special knowledge
or experience in law] he is deserving of
such distinction.
808 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 (3) Senior advocates shall, in the
matter of their practice, be subject to such
restrictions as the Bar Council of India
may, in the interests of the legal profession,
prescribe.

 (4) An advocate of the Supreme
Court who was a senior advocate of that
Court immediately before the appointed
day shall, for the purposes of this section,
be deemed to be a senior advocate:

 [Provided that where any such
senior advocate makes an application
before the 31st December 1965 to the Bar
Council maintaining the roll in which his
name has been entered that he does not
desire to continue as a senior advocate, the
Bar Council may grant the application and
the roll shall be altered accordingly."

6. Thus, other things apart, under
the scheme of the Act, designation as a
Senior Advocate comes by way of a
'distinction'
conferred,
either
by
the
Supreme Court or a High Court. It arises on
the subjective opinion of the Supreme
Court or a High Court, that an Advocate is
deserving of that 'distinction' by virtue of
(i) his ability and (ii) standing at the Bar or
special knowledge or experience in law.

7. To cut the controversy short,
earlier issues arose before the Supreme
Court primarily in the matter of designation
being conferred that Court. Those were
dealt in Indira Jaising Vs. Supreme Court
of India & Anr., (2017) 9 SCC 766
[hereinafter referred to as Indira Jaising
(Ist case)]. Following relief was claimed in
that petition:

(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 Respondent 4
Attorney General of India, representatives
from Respondent 5 SCBA and 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 P-8; and

 (c) Issue a writ of mandamus or
direction
directing
Respondent
1
representing the Chief Justice and the
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.
constitutional
law,
international
arbitration, inter-State water disputes,
cyber laws, etc. and to designate them as
Senior Advocates;

 (d) Issue a writ of mandamus or
direction
directing
Respondent
1
representing the Chief Justice and the
Judges of the Supreme Court to frame
guidelines requiring the preparation of an
Assessment Report by the Peers Committee
on the Advocates who apply for designation
based on an index 100 points as suggested
in Annexure P-8:

 (e) Issue a writ of mandamus or
direction
directing
Respondent
1
representing the Chief Justice and the
Judges of the Supreme Court to reconsider
9 All. Vishnu Behari Tewari Vs. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad & Ors.
809
its decision taken in the Full Court held on
11-2-2014 and 23-4-2015 and designate as
Senior Advocate all those advocates whose
applications
seeking
designation
had
received recommendation by not less than
five
Judges
of
the
Supreme
Court
(including deferred applicants) during the
process of circulation ordered by the Chief
Justice."

8. Upon hearing, the Supreme
Court noted the thrust of the submissions
raised before it by the petitioner in that
case, in the following terms:

 "65. Ms. Indira Jaising, who has
spearheaded the entire exercise before the
Court, at no stage, pressed for declaration
of Section 16 of the Act or the provisions of
the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 as
unconstitutional.
Her
endeavour,
particularly in the rejoinder arguments,
has been to make the exercise of
designation more objective, fair and
transparent so as to give full effect to
consideration of merit and ability, standing
at the bar and specialised knowledge or
exposure in any field of law."

9. By way of its decision, the
Supreme Court observed in paragraph
no.73 to 75, as below:

 "73. It is in the above backdrop
that we proceed to venture into the exercise
to lay down the following norms/guidelines
which henceforth would govern exercise of
designation of Senior Advocates by the
Supreme Court and all the High Courts in
the country. The norms/guidelines, in
existence, shall be suitably modified so as
to be in accord with the present.

 73.1.
All
matters
relating
to
designation of Senior Advocates in the
Supreme Court of India and in all the High
Courts of the country shall be dealt with by a
Permanent Committee to be known as
"Committee
for
Designation
of
Senior
Advocates";

 73.2. The Permanent Committee
will be headed by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice
of India and consist of two senior most Judges
of the Supreme Court of India or High
Court(s), as may be]; the learned Attorney
General for India (Advocate General of the
State in case of a High Court) will be a
Member of the Permanent Committee. The
above four Members of the Permanent
Committee will nominate another Member of
the Bar to be the fifth Member of the
Permanent Committee;

 73.3. The said Committee shall have
a permanent Secretariat, the composition of
which will be decided by the Chief Justice of
India or the Chief Justices of the High Courts,
as may be, in consultation with the other
Members of the Permanent Committee;

 73.4. All applications including
written proposals by the Hon'ble Judges will
be submitted to the Secretariat. On receipt of
such applications or proposals from Hon'ble
Judges, the Secretariat will compile the
relevant data and information with regard to
the reputation, conduct, integrity of the
advocate(s)
concerned
including
his/her
participation in pro bono work: reported
judgments in which the advocate(s) concerned
had appeared; the number of such judgments
for the last five years. The source(s) from
which information/data will be sought and
collected by the Secretariat will be as decided
by the Permanent Committee;

 73.5. The Secretariat will publish
the proposal of designation of a particular
advocate in the official website of the Court
810 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
concerned inviting the suggestions/views of
other
stakeholders
in
the
proposed
designation;

 73.6. After the database in terms
of the above is compiled and all such
information as may be specifically directed
by the Permanent Committee to be
obtained in respect of any particular
candidate is collected, the Secretariat shall
put up the case before the Permanent
Committee for scrutiny;

 73.7, The Permanent Committee
will examine each case in the light of the
data provided by the Secretariat of the
Permanent
Committee;
interview
the
advocate concerned; and make its overall
assessment on the basis of a point based
format indicated below :

Sl.No.

Matter

Points

1.
Number of years of
practise
of
the
applicant
advocate
from
the
date
of
enrolment.
(10 points for 10-20
years of practise; 20
points
for
practise
beyond
20
years
20
points

20
points
2.
Judgments
(reported
and unreported) which
indicate 40 points the
legal
formulations
advanced
by
the
advocate concerned in
the
course
of
the
proceedings
of
the
case; pro bono work
done by the advocate
40
points
concerned,
domain
expertise
of
the
applicant advocate in
various branches: of
law,
such
as
Constitutional
law,
Inter-State
Water
Disputes, Criminal law,
Arbitration
law,
Corporate law. Family
law,
Human
Rights,
Public
Interest
Litigation,
International law, law
relating to women, etc.
3.
Publications
by
the
applicant
advocate

15
points
4.
Test of personality and
suitability on the basis
of interview/interaction

25
points

 73.8. All the names that are listed
before the Permanent Committee/cleared
by the Permanent-Committee will go to the
Full Court.

 73.9. Voting by secret ballot will
not normally be resorted to by the Full
Court except when unavoidable. In the
event of resort to secret ballot, decisions
will be carried by a majority of the Judges
who
have
chosen
to
exercise
their
preference/choice

 73.10. All cases that have not
been favourably considered by the Full
Court may be reviewed/reconsidered after
expiry of a period of two years following
the manner indicated above as if the
proposal is being considered afresh;

 73.11. In the event a Senior
Advocate is guilty of conduct which
9 All. Vishnu Behari Tewari Vs. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad & Ors.
811
according to the Full Court disentitles
the Senior Advocate concerned to
continue
to
be
worthy
of
the
designation, the Full Court may review
its decision to designate the person
concerned and recall the same.

 74. We are not oblivious of the
fact that the guidelines enumerated
above may not be exhaustive of the
matter and may require reconsideration
by suitable additions/ deletions in the
light of the experience to be gained
over a period of time. This is a course
of action that we leave open for
consideration by this Court at such
point of time that the same becomes
necessary.

 75.
With
the
aforesaid
observations and directions and the
guidelines framed, we dispose of Writ
Petition (Civil) No. 454 of 2015."

10. Thereafter, in exercise of
power vested under Article 225 of the
Constitution of India, the Allahabad
High Court enforced the Allahabad
High Court (Amendment) Rules, 2018
whereby it substituted the then existing
The Designation of Senior Advocate
Rules, 1999 with The Designation of
Senior
Advocate
Rules,
2018
(hereinafter referred to as the Rules).
For ready reference, Rule 1 to Rule 12
of the Rules, are quoted below:

"1. Short title, extent
and commencement:

(1) These Rules shall be
called
"The
Designation
of
Senior Advocate Rules, 2018,

(2) These Rules shall
extend to the entire jurisdiction
of the High Court of Judicature
at Allahabad

(3) These Rules shall come
into force from the date of their
publication in the Official Gazette

2. Definitions: In these
Rules, unless the context otherwise
requires:

 (a)
"Advocate"
means
an
Advocate whose name is entered on the
rolls prepared and maintained under the
provisions of the Allahabad High Court
Rules, 1952,

 (b)
"Committee"
means
the
"Permanent Committee for Designation of
Senior Advocates as constituted under subrule (1) of Rule 3 of these Rules;

 (c) "Court" means the same as
defined in the Rules of the Court, 1952;

 (d) "High Court" means the same
as defined in section 2 (g) of the Advocate's
Act 1961;

 (e) "Roll" means the roll of
Advocates prepared and maintained under
the provisions of the Allahabad High Court
Rules, 1952,

 (f)
"Secretariat"
means
the
Permanent Secretariat established by the
Chief Justice of the High Court under subrule (2) of Rule 3 of these Rules.

 3. Permanent Committee for
designation of Senior Advocates:-
812 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 (1) All designation of Bentar
Advocates in the High Court shall be dealt
with by the Permanent Committee, which
will be headed by the Chief Justice and
consist of the two senior-most judges of the
High Court; (ii) the Advocate General of
the State of Uttar Pradesh: and (iii) a
designated senior Advocate of the Bar to be
nominated
by
the
members
of
the
Committee.

 (2) The Committee constituted
under sub-rule (1) shall have a Secretariat,
the composition of which will be decided by
the Chief Justice of the High Court, in
consultation with other members of the
Committee.

 (3) The Committee may issue
such directions from time to time as
deemed necessary regarding functioning of
the Secretariat, including the manner in
which, and the source/s from which, the
necessary data and information with
regard to designation of Senior Advocates
are
to
be
collected,
compiled
and
presented.

 4. Designation of an Advocate as
Senior Advocate:

 (1)
The
High
Court
may
designate an Advocate as a Senior
Advocate, if in its opinion, by virtue of
his/her ability and standing at the Bar, the
said Advocate is deserving of such
distinction.

 Explanation:
The
term
"standing at the bar" means position of
eminence attained by an Advocate at the
Bar by virtue of his/her seniority, legal
acumen, and high ethical standard
maintained by him, both inside and
outside the Court.
 (2) An advocate who has put in at
least ten years of actual practice as an
advocate shall be eligible to be designated
as Senior Advocate :

 Provided that a retired Judge of
any High Court, who is qualified to
practice in the Allahabad High Court may
also be recommended for being designated.

 5. Motion for Designation as
Senior
Advocate:
Designation
of
an
Advocate as Senior Advocate by the High
Court may be considered :

 (a) on the written proposal made
by the Chief Justice or any sitting Judge of
the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

 Provided that a sitting Judge will
not make a proposal for more than two
Advocates in a calendar year; or

 (b) on the written application
submitted by an Advocate, recommended
by two designated Senior Advocates.

 Provided
further
that
such
designated Senior Advocates will not
recommend the names of more than two
Advocates in a calendar year.

 6. Procedure for Designation:-
(1)
All
the
written
proposals
and
applications for designation of an Advocate
as a Senior Advocate shall be submitted to
the Secretariat.

 Provided that every application
by an advocate shall be made in Form No.
1 of APPENDIX-A appended to these
Rules.

 Provided further that in case the
proposal emanates from a Judge it need not
9 All. Vishnu Behari Tewari Vs. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad & Ors.
813
be submitted in the prescribed form.
However once the proposal is received, the
Secretariat shall request such advocate to
submit Form No. 1 duly filled in within
such time as directed by the Committee and
in such a case the requirement of having
recommendation of two Senior Advocates
would stand dispensed with.

 (2) On receipt of an application
or proposal for designation of an Advocate
as a Senior Advocate, the Secretariat shall
compile
the
relevant
data
and
the
information with regard to the reputation,
conduct,
integrity
of
the
advocate
concerned including his participation in
pro bono work, reported judgments of the
last five years in which the concerned
advocates has appeared and has actually
argued.

 (3) The Secretariat will notify the
proposed names of the advocates to be
designated as Senior Advocates on the
official website of the High Court of
Judicature
at
Allahabad,
inviting
suggestions and views within such time as
may be fixed by the Committee.

 (4) After the material in terms of
the above is compiled and all such
information,
as
may
be
specifically
required by the Committee to be obtained
in respect of any particular candidate, has
been obtained and the suggestions and
views have been received, the Secretariat
shall put up the case before the Committee
for scrutiny.

 (5) Upon submission of the case by
the Secretariat, the Committee shall examine
the same in the light of the material provided
and, if it so desires, may also interact with the
concerned advocate(s) and thereafter make
its overall assessment on the basis of the
point based format provided in APPENDIXB to these Rules.

 (6) After the overall assessment by
the Committee, all the names listed before it
will be submitted to the Full Court along with
its Assessment Report.

 (7) Normally voting by ballot shall
not be resorted to unless unavoidable. The
motion shall be carried out by consensus,
failing which voting by ballot may be
resorted to. In the event of voting by ballot,
the views of the majority of the Judges
present and voting shall constitute the
decision of the Full Court. In case the Judges
present be equally divided, the Chief Justice
or in his absence the Senior Judge present
shall have the casting vote.

 (8) The cases that have not been
favorably considered by the Full Court may
be reviewed/reconsidered after the expiry of
a period of two years, following the same
procedure as prescribed above as if the
proposal is being considered afresh.

 7. Designation of Advocates as
Senior Advocates by the Chief Justice:- (1)
On the approval of the name of the Advocate
by the Full Court, the Chief Justice shall
designate such an advocate as a Senior
Advocate under section 16 of the Advocate's
Act, 1961.

 (2) The Registrar General shall
notify the designation to the Secretary
General of the Supreme Court of India, the
Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, Bar Council of
India and also to all the District and Sessions
Judges subordinate to the High Court.

 (3) A record of the proceedings of
the Committee and the record received
from the Full Court in this regard shall be
814 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
maintained by the Permanent Secretariat
for further reference.

 8. Restrictions on Designated
Senior Advocates: A Senior Advocate shall
be subject to such restrictions as the
Supreme Court, High Court, the Bar
Council of India or the Bar Council of the
State may prescribe from time to time.

 9. Canvassing: Canvassing in any
manner
by
a
nominee/applicant
for
designation as a Senior Advocate shall
disqualify
him/her
from
being
so
considered or designated for the next five
years.

 10. Interpretation:- All questions
relating to the interpretation of these Rules
shall be referred to the Chief Justice,
whose decision thereon shall be final.

 11. Review and Recall:- (1) If,
after being designated as a Senior
Advocate, it is reported by a Judge of the
Court, that by virtue of his/her conduct or
behavior either inside or outside the Court
he/she has forfeited his/her privilege to the
distinction conferred upon him/her by the
Court, the matter may be placed by the
Chief Justice before the Full Court for
consideration of withdrawal of designation
as Senior Advocate. If the Full Court is of
the view that Senior Advocate by virtue of
his/her conduct or behavior either inside or
outside
the
Court
has
disentitled
himself/herself
to
be worthy of
the
designation, the Full Court may review its
decision to designate the concerned person
and recall the same.

 (2) The procedure for review and
recall shall be the same as provided under
sub-rule (7) of Rule 6. After the approval
by the Full Court the Chief Justice shall
recall the designation of such Senior
Advocate. The Registrar General shall
notify the decision in the same manner as
provided in sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 of these
Rules.

 12. Repeal and Saving:- All
previous Rules, except Rule 11 of Chapter
XXIV of Allahabad High Court Rules,
1952, on the subject matter covered by
these Rules including the guidelines for
designating
an
advocate
as
Senior
Advocate are hereby repealed. However
this repeal shall not, by itself, invalidate the
actions
taken
under
the
repealed
rules/guidelines."

11. Also, since much submissions
have been advanced on the strength of
marks awarded to the applicants seeking
designation, we consider it appropriate to
extract Appendix 'B' referred to in Rule
6(5) of the Rules. It reads as below:

APPENDIX-B
[See Rule 6 (5)
POINT BASED FORMAT FOR
ASSESSMENT OF AN ADVOCATE
FOR BEING DESIGNATED AS
SENIOR ADVOCATE
Sl.
No.
Matter
Points

1.
Number of years of
practise of the applicant
advocate from the date of
enrolment.
(10 points for 10-20
years of practise; 20
points for practise
beyond 20 years

20 points
2.
Judgments (reported and
unreported) which
indicate 40 points the
legal formulations
40 points
9 All. Vishnu Behari Tewari Vs. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad & Ors.
815
advanced by the
advocate concerned in
the course of the
proceedings of the case;
pro bono work done by
the advocate concerned,
domain expertise of the
applicant advocate in
various branches: of law,
such as Constitutional
law, Inter-State Water
Disputes, Criminal law,
Arbitration law,
Corporate law. Family
law, Human Rights,
Public Interest
Litigation, International
law, law relating to
women, etc.

3.
Publications by the
applicant advocate
15 points
4.
Test of personality and
suitability on the basis of
interview/interaction

25 points

12. We note here itself, no format
is prescribed or provided by the Rules for
submission of the Assessment Report by
the Permanent Committee to the Full Court
in terms of Rule 6 (6) of the Rules.

13. Later, a notice was published
by the High Court inviting applications to
confer designation as Senior Advocate, by
31.07.2018.

14. It is a fact that the two
petitioners before us along with 98 others
sought conferment of distinction - of Senior
Advocate, by the Allahabad High Court.
Also, in its meeting dated 10.05.2019, the
Permanent Committee resolved that it had
received suggestions with respect to the
four applicants. The Permanent Committee
also considered the fact that three out of
hundred applicants had already been
elevated to the bench of this Court.
Therefore, their names had to be excluded.

15. The writ petition discloses -
thereafter
the
Permanent
Committee
headed by Hon'ble the then Chief Justice,
considered the impact of Indira Jaising (Ist
case) and resolved as below:

 "as per criteria laid down in the
judgement and in our Rules as Appendix
'B', aforesaid, Advocates / applicants who
earns 45 or more point out, of 75 points,
shall only be considered to be eligible as
such for their nomination for designation
as Senior Advocate".

 Office is directed to prepare and
list
eligible
Advocate
/
Applicant
accordingly.

 The
Committee
feels
that
interview / interaction with Advocates /
Applicants to be dispensed with."

16. Thereafter further resolutions
(of date 10.05.2019), are shown to exist
with which we may not be concerned. After
that, there appear names along with
signatures
of
five
Members
of
the
Permanent
Committee.
Thereafter,
a
dissenting note of one of the members /
nominated Senior Advocate is found
recorded. In effect, it clearly records as
below:

 "The
Committee
did
not
undertake the exercise of assessing the
merits of the applicants for designation as
Senior Advocates. The Apex Court has also
interdicted the determination of Income
limit of such applicants. The besides
816 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
awarding marks as laid down by the Apex
Court, as per Para 73.8, the committee was
also to Interview the applicants."

17. Even according to the
dissenting note though marks were awarded
to the applicants, they ought to have been
interviewed as well, in terms of the ratio
laid down in Indira Jaising (Ist case).

18. Thereafter, further meeting of
the Permanent Committee is disclosed on
13.05.2019.
Agenda
Item
No.3
and
resolution passed thereon is extracted as
below:

Sl.
N
o.
Agenda

Resolution

1.
-----
----
2.
------
------
3.
Consideration
of
directions
given
vide
earlier
resolution
dated
10.5.2019
for
preparing list of
Advocates/Applica
tions falling under
zone
of
consideration

The office has
placed
the
information
as
directed vide our
earlier
resolution dated
10.5.2019 in a
tabular
form.

The names of the
advocates/applic
ants who have
submitted
their
forms
to
consider
their
names
for
designation
of
senior advocate
are
to
e
considered
as
per the criteria
adopted by us is
annexed
herewith
as
Table
'A'

The list of the
advocates/applic
ants qualified for
consideration as
per Table 'A'
are
awarded
points as per the
criteria
laid
down
in
Appendix-B
of
the Designation
of
Senior
Advocate Rules
2018 is annexed
herewith
as
Table
'B'
On the basis of
table
'A'
and
Table
'B'
the
Advocates/
Applicants who
are
found
eligible
to
be
under zone of
consideration is
annexed
herewith
as
Table
'C'

Details of the
Advocates/Appli
cants not falling
under zone of
consideration for
the
reasons
assigned before
their names is
annexed
herewith
as
Table
'D'
9 All. Vishnu Behari Tewari Vs. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad & Ors.
817
19. This again is signed by all
members of the Permanent Committee. At
this stage, it was further indicated that one
applicant withdrew his application, and
another application was found defective.
Thus, 95 applications survived. It is not in
doubt that as per Table-C, 78 applicants
were found eligible by the Permanent
Committee. Further, as per Table-D, the
remaining
applicants
including
the
petitioners before us were included in the
list of the applicants not found eligible, by
the Permanent Committee. To that extent,
there is no factual dispute. Limited dispute
exists with respect to permissibility of
waiver of interview requirement; marks not
awarded on the scale of maximum 100
marks; the Permanent Committee did not
disclose to the Full Court the marks
awarded to the individual applicants; the
Permanent Committee erred in fixing cut
off marks and; it further erred in not
sending the remaining 17 names to the Full
Court along with its Assessment Report.

20. In that background, at the Full
Court meeting of the Allahabad High Court
held on 18.05.2019, resolution was passed
to confer distinction of designation as
Senior Advocate, on 75 out of 78 names
cleared by the Permanent Committee. The
distinction sought by two the applicants
was declined at that Full Court meeting
whereas the matter pertaining to one
applicant was deferred. It is a matter of
common knowledge that that designation
was conferred on him, later, by a separate
Full Court Meeting resolution.

21. Before requisite Notification
could be issued pursuant to the resolution
of the Full Court meeting, on 18.5.2019
itself, the petitioner (Sri Vishnu Behari
Tewari) served notice on the High Court to
not give effect to the report of the
Permanent Committee. On 20.5.2019, at
10:00 A.M., notice of the present petition
was served on the High Court. However,
the impugned Notification No.162/VIII-C168 also dated 20.5.2019 came to be
published on that itself. Consequently, the
petitioner
moved
an
Amendment
Application in the writ petition. It was
allowed on 23.5.2019 and the following
two prayers were added as prayer nos. i(a)
and iv(a) to the Prayer clause of the writ
petition.

 "i(a). To issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari
quashing
the
notification
bearing
notification No. 162/VIII-C-168/Permanent
Secretariat dated: Allahabad, May, 20,
2019 (Annexure No. 10 to this writ
petition).

 iv(a). To issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondents to place the list of
Advocates mentioned in Table-D annexed
with the Minutes dated 10.5.2019 before
Full Court of Parliament Committee, to
secure the ends of justice."

22. The Stay Application filed was
rejected on 23.5.2019 itself. It is also on
record that the petitioner moved another
application seeking to implead the 75
newly designated Senior Advocates as
party respondents in these proceedings.
Time was spent in serving notices. Upon
exchange of pleadings, the matter has
remained
pending
for
long.
In
the
meanwhile, 5 years have passed. Since
then, besides one designation conferred, no
other designation has yet been conferred by
the Allahabad High Court.

23. Also, during pendency of this
writ petition, the matter of designation of
818 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Senior Advocates came to be further
considered by the Supreme Court in Ms.
Indira Jaising Vs. Supreme Court of
India,
AIR
Online
2023
SCC
24
[hereinafter referred to as the Indira
Jaising (IInd case)]. Those proceedings
were decided on 12.5.2023. Perusal of the
same reveals that the matter came to be
reconsidered by the Supreme Court in
terms of observations made in paragraph 74
of Indira Jaising (Ist case). In paragraph
11 of Indira Jaising (IInd case), it was
observed as below:

 "11. In paragraph 74 of the 2017
judgment, this Court noticed that the
guidelines
enumerated
may
not
be
exhaustive
and
may
require
reconsideration
by
suitable
additions/deletions in the light of the
experience to be gained over a period of
time. Thus, the Bench left it open for
consideration by this Court at such point of
time that the same may become necessary.
The debate before us in the present
applications is in this conspectus."

 (emphasis supplied)

24. Considering the same, the
Supreme
Court
made
the
following
pertinent observations with respect to
Voting by Secret Ballot, in paragraphs 17 ,
18, 19 and 20 of the report:

 "17. In our view, the matter
before us is in a limited compass. Our remit
is to fine-tune the guidelines laid by this
Court
in
the
2017
judgment.
The
constitution of a Permanent Committee,
reliance on certain objective criteria for
assessment, and final decision through
voting are the central aspects of the 2017
judgment. Our remit does not extend to
reviewing the same, but only to modifying
the criteria through our experience gained
over a period of time.

 18. We agree that the elaborate
procedure carried out by the Permanent
Committee would serve no purpose if the
ultimate decision is taken by secret ballot.
It has been found that even the applicants
who were beyond the cut-off were at times
put through a secret ballot. This has
resulted in both the exclusion of people
from the list prepared by the Permanent
Committee and expansion of the list by
further inclusion.

 19. The aforesaid aspect has to
be considered in the conspectus of the
concept of 'Senior Designation'. This
designation has always been held to be an
honour conferred. While it is alleged that
voting by secret ballot may not always
subserve the interests of transparency, in
practice judges may be reluctant to put
forth their views openly. This is especially
the case where the comments of a judge
can have a deleterious effect on the
advocate's practice.

 20. Thus, we find merit in the
contention that voting by secret ballot
should not be the rule but clearly an
exception. In case it has to be resorted to,
the reasons for the same should be
recorded."

(emphasis supplied)

25. With respect to the Cut-off
marks to be awarded to the applicants by
the Permanent Committee, the following
pertinent observations came to be made
paragraph 21 of the report:

 "21. A grievance was raised that
while the cut-off marks may have already
9 All. Vishnu Behari Tewari Vs. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad & Ors.
819
been decided, the same are neither
published in advance nor communicated
to those applying for senior designation,
thereby leading to speculation at the Bar.
It was thus prayed that the cut-off marks
be released in advance."

(emphasis supplied)

26. Then, with respect to the points
to be assigned for Publications further
observations were made as below:

 "25. We have considered the
aforesaid aspect and find some merit on
both sides. We find that the allocation of 15
points for publication is high, and thus we
deem it fit to reduce the available points
under this category to 5 points. Most
practicing advocates find very little time to
write academic articles. In any case,
academic publications require a different
aptitude. However, given that Senior
Advocates are expected to make nuanced
and sophisticated submissions, academic
knowledge of the law is an important
prerequisite. Thus, we would not like to do
away with this criteria, but expand what
should fall under this criteria, while
reducing the points under this category.

 26. We believe that confining
these criteria merely to the authorship of
academic articles would not be enough.
Instead, it must also include teaching
assignments or guest courses delivered by
advocates at law schools. This would be a
more holistic reflection of the advocate's
ability
to
contribute
to
the
critical
development of the law. It also shows their
interest in guiding and helping their peers
at the Bar.

 28. Here, we would also like to
add that the quality of writing by an
advocate should be an important factor in
allocating points under this category. We
leave it to the Permanent Committee to
decide on the manner of assigning points
under
this
category,
including
the
possibility of taking external assistance to
gauge the quality of publications. This can
be through other Senior Advocates or
academics. We are conscious that this
would increase the load of the Secretariat
assisting the Permanent Committee, but
that is inevitable."

27. Next, with respect to marks to
be awarded for Unreported or Reported
judgments pro bono work etc., the Supreme
Court made the following observations:

 "30. We deem it fit to enhance the
number of points under this category by 10
points, having deducted the same from Sl.
No. 3, i.e. publications. We are also
increasing the scope of this category.

 31. The first aspect to be noticed
under this head is that of reported and
unreported judgments. We deem it fit to
clarify that it is not orders (not laying down
any proposition of law) but judgments that
have to be considered. We say so as
judgments ordinarily deal with significant
and contested legal issues.

 32. Here, we ought to also
consider the role played by the advocate in
the proceedings. In recent times, and
particularly in the Supreme Court, the
number of advocates present for a matter
are very high. However, that is not ipso
facto reflective of the assistance that they
are providing to the Court. A matter may
be argued by a counsel who may be
assisted by others, including an Advocateon-Record.