GLIMPSE OF A LATEST VERDICT* *S. Lawrence Vimalraj Vs. The Registrar (Judicial) & 4 Ors.* W.P. (MD) No. 27523 of 2022 Dated: 23.12.2022 *HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M. SUNDAR AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATISH KUMAR* dismissed the Writ Petition in the matter relating to *“Senior Advocates Designation – Women – Equal Status – Reservation”*, and further observed and held as follows:

*GLIMPSE OF A LATEST VERDICT*

*S. Lawrence Vimalraj Vs. The Registrar (Judicial) & 4 Ors.*
W.P. (MD) No. 27523 of 2022
Dated: 23.12.2022

*HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M. SUNDAR AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATISH KUMAR* dismissed the Writ Petition in the matter relating to *“Senior Advocates Designation – Women – Equal Status – Reservation”*, and further observed and held as follows:

1) This Writ Petition had been filed by an advocate, who being neither an applicant, nor a woman, and further, this not being a public interest litigation, seeking Senior Advocate Status to equal status or atleast 30% of women amongst the advocates practicing in Chennai and Madurai Bench.

2) Conferring the status of Senior Advocate on an Advocate through Section 16 of ‘The Advocates Act, 1961 is a privilege and not a post. Therefore, any prayer for reservation is misplaced. _Ref: Order in W.A.(MD) No. 1260 of 2014 dated 12.01.2016._ Designating an Advocate as a Senior Advocate is a matter of honour and privilege conferred upon a Member of the Bar. Such privilege and honour cannot be based on reservation. It must be purely based on the merit cum ability and successful career of the Member of the Bar irrespective of the gender of the Member at the Bar. _Ref: AIR 2018 Kerala 105_.

3) Specifying the number of posts, vacancies, etc. will only arise in the case of posts and not in the case of conferring a privilege.

4) On factual basis, out of 161 candidates, only 9 were women, in such a circumstance, the plea for 50% or 1/3rd reservation for women does not stand. Further, the Rules does not provide for any reservation. Also, the _Indira Jaising Case_ does not suggest any reservation.

5) The argument that candidates recommended by Judges, to be placed greater is not acceptable since all candidates are of equal footing irrespective of their mode of application.

6) The argument that all the names should be placed before the Full Court is contrary to the Rules. Only the names that are both _listed_ and _cleared_ should be placed before the Full Court, i.e., only names cleared by the Permanent Committee will be placed before the Full Court.