The Jabalpur Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court on Friday, on the administrative side, considered the challenge of Validity of Rule 9 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Designation of Senior Advocates) Rules, 2008.
Writ petition No.6827/2020 has been filed by Anil Chawla and Yogita Pant and Writ Petition No.26766/2019 has been filed by P. C. Paliwal. The petitioners in the first writ petition (W.P.No.6827/20) have challenged the validity of Rule 9 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Designation of Senior Advocates) Rules, 2008, on the ground that there cannot be any restriction of having a practice of a minimum of 15 years as an Advocate and also there cannot be any requirement of having gross income of not less than Rs 10 lakh per annum from profession shown in the previous three years of the income tax return, for being designated as Senior Advocate.
The petitioner in the second writ petition (W.P.No.26766/19) apart from challenging the validity of Rule 9 has also assailed the validity of Rule 21 (5) of the Rules 2018 which includes Additional Advocate General who is no more than a Government advocate as held by the Supreme Court in M.T. Khan and others vs. Govt. of A.P. and others (2004) 2 SCC 267.
The counsel for both petitions argued that the Rules are not in conformity with the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Indira Jaisingh vs. Supreme Court of India and others (2017) 9 SCC 766, inasmuch as they are also not in conformity with the Rules framed by the Supreme Court and all other High Courts in the country for the same purpose.
The counsel further submitted that they shall make comprehensive representations raising all their arguments, to the High Court on the administrative side.
Read Also: Supreme Court dismisses Wasim Rizvi plea for removal of Quran verses, imposes Rs 50,000 fine
In light of above facts the, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Mohammad Rafiq and Justice Sanjay Dwivedi ordered while disposing of the petitions that “the High Court shall on administrative side consider the same keeping in view the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court and also taking into consideration the rules framed by various High Courts.”