By Express News Service
CUTTACK: The Orissa High Court has stated that the designation ‘Senior Advocate’ is a coveted place from the viewpoint of the Bar and the society. A division bench comprising Justice CR Dash and Justice Pramath Patnaik stated, “There should not be crowd in such a coveted position. Every Tom, Dick and Harry should not be brought to this position by whatever means permissible. Certain percentage of the total strength of a particular Bar should only be allowed to enter into this coveted position”.
While spelling out the parameters for designation of Senior Advocate the Bench stated, “He should be an Advocate with towering personality, suave and gentle. His disposition towards the Court and his fellow counsels is impressive and known for his ready wit. Ask him any question on any law he has an answer with reasoning. His standing in the Bar is remarkable. He is a social factor in the society, he lives. He is humble, dignified, kind and a person with sobriety. He would however not come to stand in a queue to file an application for being designated as ‘Senior Advocate’”.
“Such a person being an asset to the profession, suo motu power should be reserved to be exercised for such a person only and such power should be given to High Courts”, the Bench pressured. The Supreme Court had framed the rules/norms for designating Senior Advocates within the Indira Jaising case. But the High Courts weren’t given suo motu energy, the Bench noticed.
The statement got here on Monday whereas hanging down sub-rule (9) of Rule- 6 of of High Court of Orissa (Designation of Senior Advocates) Rules, 2019 on the bottom that it was past the scope of the rules/norms framed by the Supreme Court in the Indira Jaising case. The Full Court had exercised energy beneath the sub-rule to unanimously resolve to designate 5 of the candidates as Senior
Advocates within the midst of the choice course of on August 17, 2019. The Supreme Court within the Indira Jaisingh case had recognised two sources for drawing advocates for designating ‘Senior Advocates’. One – written proposal by the Judges and second – the appliance by the advocate involved. There is not any third supply of selecting an advocate by train of suo motu energy, the Bench stated.