She had also contended that the method of designation by vote leads to unhealthy lobbying with judges and victimizes ethical lawyers who do not lobby. Further, in her petition, she had taken a dig at the current crop of Seniors who hold sway over the Supreme Court practice, alleging that lack of transparency has led to a monopoly of a few Senior Advocates at the Bar.
The other matter, which has now been tagged with Jaising’s petition, has its genesis in the designation of a Delhi Based Advocate in 2014 by the Meghalaya High Court. The designation was allegedly made in violation of the Rules framed by the High Court itself.Things did not end there, as two more Delhi-based lawyers were made seniors a year later. This time, however, the High Court amended the criteria prescribed by the Rules, allegedly to facilitate the designations. Though the same was challenged in the Supreme Court, it did not stop the High Court from amending the Rules once again, so as to facilitate the designation of lawyers practicing elsewhere in India.
In October last year, A Bench of Justices JS Khehar and Arun Mishra stayed the amendment and issued a notice to the Meghalaya High Court, on a petition filed by Shillong High Court Bar Association.
( Source- PTI )