Today, the President of the National Lawyers' Campaign for Judicial Transparency and Reforms and Advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara moves to the Supreme Court of India against the designation of Advocates as "Senior" given under Sections 16 and 23(5) of the Advocates Act,1961.

Section16 of the Advocates Act,1961 states that-

Senior and other advocates -

• There shall be two classes of advocates, namely, senior advocates and other advocates.
• An advocate may, with his consent, be designated as senior advocate if the Supreme Court or a High Court is of opinion that by virtue of his ability 1[standing at the Bar or special knowledge or experience in law, he is deserving of such distinction.
• Senior advocates shall, in the matter of their practice, be subject to such restrictions as the Bar Council of India may, in the interest of the legal profession, prescribe.
• 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: 2[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.

The matter was mentioned before the Chief Justice of India. 

"A special class of advocates with special rights, privileges and status not available to ordinary advocates, is unconstitutional, being violative of the mandate of equality under Article 14 and the right to practice any profession under Article 19, as well as the right to life under Article 21," the plea states.

The plea compares senior designation to that of Queen's counsel in 18th century England. "The conferment of the title of the King/Queen‟s counsel is the conferment of a title as a favour to lawyers who represented the Crown...The concept of Queen‟s Counsel is totally alien to India."

It is further said that the impugned provisions have resulted in the denial of justice to the ordinary class of litigants who cannot afford a senior advocate or who wish to engage a senior advocate of his/her choice in whom he/she has confidence and faith.

"Lawyers representing the cause of their respective clients are entitled to equal and just treatment. However, that almost universally is not practised. A designated lawyer, who very often represents a bigger fish, has his way in every possible sense."

The next date of hearing is on 20th March 2023.