On December 23, the division bench of the Madras High Court, composed of Justices M. Sundar and N. Satish Kumar, dismissed a petition calling for a reservation for women to be designated as Senior Advocates, noting that such designation is a privilege rather than a job. 

Giving an Advocate the title of Senior Advocate pursuant to Section 16 of "The Advocates Act, 1961 (25 of 1961)" is unquestionably a privilege rather than a position. Consequently, any prayer for a reservation is pointless. 

The petitioner is neither an applicant nor an affronted party whose rights have been violated, the court continued, thus he lacks locus standi to proceed with the suit.

"There can be no two opinion that the writ petitioner has no locus qua captioned writ petition as he is not a applicant and he has made a positive averment that captioned writ petition is not a Public Interest Litigation," said the court. 

Only nine of the 161 applicants who submitted applications for the position of Senior Advocate were women, according to the court. Only 7 of these had testified before the Permanent Committee.

"When there are only 7 women candidates out of total 161 candidates, even on a demurrer the plea for 50% or at least 1/3 rd reservation for women has no legs to stand."

The court further stated that all nine female candidates presented their paperwork in accordance with the rules and "this means that they have accepted to go by said Rules which does not provide for reservation of any kind."

"Therefore, the argument qua reservation is clearly a non starter," said the court.

The court further stated that the Supreme Court of India's ruling in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India "does not suggest any reservation and this by itself takes the wind out of the sails qua reservation argument."

In a separate, concurring opinion, Justice N Satish Kumar noted that a Senior Advocate designation is an honour and privilege bestowed upon a Member of the Bar.

"It is clear that Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act clearly emphasis, firstly, that it is a distinction conferred and not something that comes about automatically upon achieving known or predetermined standards. It is a privilege based upon the opinion of the Court considering ability, standing at the Bar or special knowledge or experience in law. Thus, it is a subjective decision though based on objective considerations."

Case Title: S Lawrence Vimalraj v. The Registrar (Judicial) and others
Case No: W.P.(MD)No.27523 of 2022 and W.M.P.(MD)No.21615 of 2022 in W.P.(MD)No.27523 of 2022

Link:https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/madras-do/index.php/casestatus/viewpdf/WP(MD)_27523_2022_XXX_0_0_19122022_146_159.pdf