Senior advocate designation is merit-based privilege that cannot be reserved based on gender, India court rules News
©Wikimedia(Kalyan07kumar)
Senior advocate designation is merit-based privilege that cannot be reserved based on gender, India court rules

A two-judge bench of the Madras High Court ruled Friday that the designation of a senior advocate is not an automatic right but a merit-based privilege. Dismissing the writ petition, the court ruled that the designees for senior advocate positions cannot be capped at a particular percentage nor can the designation be reserved for gender considerations.

The petitioner sought, among other things, a reservation of fifty percent or one-third for women out of the total 161 candidates who had applied for the designation of the senior advocate ranks. The petitioner argued that this reservation had to be set aside  during the application process.

At the outset of the judgment, the court highlighted that the petitioner lacked standing to bring suit, given that he was neither affected by the relief he sought nor was the petition public interest litigation. This alone, according to the court was sufficient reason to dismiss the petition.

Even so, the court addressed the merits of the case with Justice M. Sundar writing the judgment. The reason underpinning the judgment of the court rested on the distinction made between a post and privilege. Relying on the provisions of the Advocates Act of 1961, the court stated that conferring the status of a senior advocate is clearly a privilege and not a post. It went on to say that any prayer for reservation is misplaced.

In the concurring judgment, Justice Sathish Kumar traced the history of the distinction of a senior advocate. Sathish Kumar highlighted that the distinction’s very inception was triggered by the need to recognize merit in the profession. Sathish Kumar stated:

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

The writ petition was thus dismissed with no orders as to costs.

 

THIS DAY @ LAW

Bank of England granted political independence

On May 6, 1997, British Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown announced that the Bank of England would be granted political independence for the first time in the three-hundred year history of the Bank. This policy was statutized in the subsequent Bank of England Act of 1998 gave the Bank independent control of British monetary policy effective June 1, 1998. Read the Bank of England Act of 1998.

Chinese Exclusion Act barred Chinese laborers from US

On May 6, 1882, President Chester A. Arthur signed the Chinese Exclusion Act, barring Chinese laborers from entering the United States and prohibiting courts from bestowing US citizenship on Chinese. Connecticut Senator Joseph Hawley spoke out against the Act in these words: Let the proposed statue be read 100 years hence, dug out of the dust of ages and forgotten as it will be except for a line of sneer by some historian, and ask the young man not well read in the history of this country what was the reason for excluding these men and he would not be able to find it in the law. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and its successors were abolished in 1943 at the insistence of President Franklin Roosevelt.