Summary
The Supreme Court rejected a constitutional challenge to the classification of advocates as senior advocates and other advocates and the associated designation framework. Recognition of expertise and merit, coupled with practice restrictions and a transparent designation process, supported the classification. General allegations of professional monopoly did not discharge the burden of establishing constitutional invalidity.
Issues
- Whether classification and designation of senior advocates violated constitutional equality and other fundamental rights.
Provisions considered
- Sections 16 and 23(5), Advocates Act, 1961The statutory classification, merit-based designation and right of pre-audience survived the constitutional challenge. (¶¶ 10, 14–19)
Held
- Constitutional invalidity requires a demonstrated constitutional transgression or lack of legislative competence; an abstract attack and sweeping allegations cannot establish it. (¶ 13–14)
- Designation recognises expertise and merit and carries restrictions, including the requirement for instructing counsel and limits on drafting, filing and dealing with litigants. The classification was not arbitrary or artificial. (¶ 15–18)
- The petitioners failed to rebut the presumption of constitutionality or establish that the statutory distinction violated Article 14. (¶ 18–19)
Result
Writ petition dismissed without costs.