Every morning, the Bench, led by the Chief Justice of India, gives leeway to lawyers who appear in cases that require an urgent hearing. Lawyers must convince the top judge, very briefly, that without an urgent hearing, the rights, even the fundamental rights, of their clients may suffer a grievous harm.
So, in keeping with the Supreme Court’s long tradition as a people’s court, the Chief Justices have allowed lawyers to “mention” cases for an early or out-of-turn hearing. The court uses its discretion to allow or dismiss the plea.
On Wednesday, Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra barred senior advocates from make any such urgent mention before his Bench.
The constitutional courts designate a lawyer as senior advocate in recognition of his or her superior professional abilities. However, a PIL petition filed by advocate Indira Jaising in the Supreme Court has demanded transparency in the designation.
Chief Justice Misra declared in a crowded courtroom that only advocates-on-record would henceforth make urgent mentions. This was aimed at providing a level playing field, and assuring the legal community that the case in question, and not the advocate, would guide the court’s discretion to grant an early hearing.
Under the Supreme Court Rules, an advocate-on-record can plead for a party. The Rules mandate that only advocates-on-record file an appearance or act for a party. Recent history has seen the Supreme Court Advocates-on-record Association don the role of the petitioner to successfully win the day for judicial independence in the NJAC case.
Chief Justice Misra’s historic decision follows a lawyer’s protest in court on September 19. The lawyer, waiting for his turn, expressed his annoyance at how senior advocates were able to make multiple mentions for early hearing of their cases, while juniors like him were denied the opportunity. His statement to the Bench had led to a noisy scene.