October, 1980 – Abdul Rahman Antulay set up Indira Gandhi Pratibha Pratisthan Trust which had Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as Trustees. It was a prayer, Court should issue a Writ of Quo Warranto declaring Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 disqualified from continuing to hold office.  

_____

This constitutional action stands in a class by itself. R.J. Mehta, a Trade Union Leader, has moved this Court by this unusual action under Article 226. Respondent No. 1 is Learned Chief Justice of this High Court, Mr. Justice Venkat Shrinivas Deshpande. Mr. Justice Bhaskar Annaji Masodkar and Mr. Justice Raghumandan Lal Aggarwal, Learned Sitting Judges of this High Court, are Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 respectively.

Learned Counsel, Indira Jaising’s arguments were heard in extenso. Learned Counsel, Indira Jaising expressed serious apprehension. Is such apprehension justifiable? My answer is in negative. Courts do not decide abstract apprehensions. The anxiety is more conjectural than real. Does ‘public confidence’ depend upon whether a Judge is or is not associated with a Trust? I think not.

A cloudy sky is anathema to a judicial universe. As observed by Chandrachud J, as Learned Chief Justice of India then was, “respect for law is, in a large measure, dependent upon esteem in which society holds those whose duty it is to interpret the law.” Questions raised are undoubtedly of considerable ‘public importance’. But if I am right, they are not amenable in judicial process and legal redress. Every ‘public question’ is not capable of constitutional adjudication.

– Hon’ble Justice Subhash Chhaganlal Pratap of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, R.J. Mehta v. His Lordship, Chief Justice Venkat Shrinivas Deshpande and Ors., AIR 1982 Bom 125 decided on 04.02.1982.

_____

Venkat Shrinivas Deshpande, Bhaskar Annaji Masodkar, Raghumandan Lal Aggarwal, Subhash Chhaganlal Pratap JJ were not elevated to SC.

Indira Gandhi Pratibha Pratisthan Trust was widely investigated. “Indira as Commerce”, one said.

Learned Counsel, Indira Jaising was in her 42nd yr. on 04.02.1982, 4 yrs. away from being designated a Senior Advocate.

_____

Serjeants-at-Law

Supreme Court Bar Association and others sought to contend, very few actively Practicing Advocates are able to devote time to writing books or articles. This is apart from the fact, it is often difficult to ascertain whether an article is written by an Advocate themselves.

Most Practicing Advocates find very little time to write academic articles.

– Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India, [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 454 of 2015].

_____

The standard of conduct of an Advocate-on-Record always ought to be higher than conduct of any other Advocate who is not an Advocate-on-Record.

– Hon’ble Justice Abhay S. Oka, Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt. Of NCT of Delhi), [Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 4299 of 2024] decided on 20.02.2025.

_____

The process of improvement is continuous, as we learn from every experience.

To be a good human being, by itself, does not qualify an Advocate for designation. An interaction or interview for a few minutes by any standard is not sufficient to assess personality and suitability of concerned Advocates. Such brief interactions can at best give an outer view. The system of 100 point-based assessment has not achieved desired objectives. The points-based assessment is not flawless.

Ms. Indira Jaising, Senior Advocate must be given full credit for starting a constructive debate.

– Hon’ble Justice Abhay S. Oka, Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt. Of NCT of Delhi), [Criminal Appeal No. 865 of 2025] decided on 13.05.2025.

_____

We wish to observe, designation of a Senior Advocate is a mark of distinction granted by Court in recognition of exceptional legal acumen. It is not conferred as a matter of right, nor can any Advocate claim it merely on basis of seniority, experience or popularity. Courts are not expected to grant this status arbitrarily or as a matter of favour. The process for designation must be merit-based, transparent, fair and free from personal preferences or informal influences. It must be reiterated, conferment of Senior Advocate status is a privilege not an entitlement.

– Hon’ble Justice R. Mahadevan, Orissa High Court v. Banshidhar Baug, [Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 11605-11606 of 2021] decided on 14.07.2025.