Judgment R.S.Garg, J. 1. This writ Application has been filed by Mr. Basant Kumar Choudhary, an Advocate practising in this Court for the following reliefs,-- (i) For issuance of an appropriate writ declaring sec. 16(1)(2) and (3) of the Advocates Act, 1961 as ultra vires the Constitution of India. (ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ declaring Para-A of Chapter-XXIV of the Patna High Court Rules, 1916 as ultra vires the Constitution of India. (iii) For issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 15.12.2004 (contained in Annexure-1) in so far as it relates to designation of Mr. Vikas Singh, the respondent as Senior Advocate, (iv) For issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the High Court the respondent to designate all those Advocates as Senior whose applications for designation have been arbitrarily rejected even though they are as able, experienced and knowledgeable as those whose name appears in the impugned order. 2. At the very inception we must record that so far as the reliefs claimed in sub-para (iv) of para-1 are concerned, by order dated 19.1.2005 after detailing our reasons we made it clear that we will not hear the petitioner in relation to the reliefs as claimed in sub-para (iv) of para-1 of the writ petition as it originally stood or as it stood after amendment brought under I.A No. 305/2005. 3. The petitioner says that sec. 16(1) (2) & (3) of the Advocates Act, 1961 are ultra vires the Constitution of India; he also seeks a writ of declaration that para-A of Chapter XXIV of the Patna High Court Rules, 1916 is ultra vires the Constitution of India and a relief is sought against one Mr. Vikash Singh, who has been declared as Senior Advocate that the notification issued in his favour be quashed. 4. In support of the Writ Application the petitioner has submitted that the Parliament had no competence to classify the advocates as superiors by designating them as seniors and leave rest of the advocates in the inferior category. It is submitted that sec. 16 of the Advocates Act and the Patna High Court Rules relating to designation of Senior Advocate to not provide any guidelines and give unbridled powers to the Judges of the High Court acting in their administrative capacity. It is submitted that sec. 16 of the Advocates Act and the Patna High Court Rules relating to designation of Senior Advocate to not provide any guidelines and give unbridled powers to the Judges of the High Court acting in their administrative capacity. It is also the case of the petitioner that the said provisions do not contain any eligibility criteria for designation of an advocate as Senior Advocate except that he has standing of 10 years. It is also the submission of the petitioner that sec. 16 of the Patna High Court Rules is not properly crafted but is using the vague terms like ability, experience, standing, deserving and ordinarily practising within the jurisdiction of the Patna High Court. It is the submission of the petitioner that the vagueness is writ large in the High Court Rules and it opens the scope for nepotism, favouritism and leaves the decision to be arrived at by personal gains and fancies. The submission is that the process laid down in Part-A of Chapter XXIV of the Patna High Court Rules tends to create a class within the class without any rational basis and without any nexus for any conceivable object to be achieved. The petitioner has submitted that the order of the High Court contained in Annexure-1 is absolutely arbitrary and is based on considerations of intimacy and personal relationship of the beneficiary with the Judges and as such Annexure-1 is an extreme instance of favouritism. Lastly it is submitted that applications of number of the persons had been rejected because they had no intimacy with the Judges or they could not effectively lobby for favourable considerations by the Judges. 5. Referring to Rule 1 of Part-A of Chapter XXIV, it is submitted that the words ability, experience and standing at the Bar are such which would not lead to any positive result and in fact would leave everything in the hands of the Judges and the Judges would select the persons, who are most suited to them and as such the Rule would leave much scope for nepotism etc. It is also pleaded in the Writ Application that by judging the ability, experience and standing at the Bar of an Advocate, the objective tests of number of filings, appearances and conduct of cases in the. Court independently have never been adopted in the past in the Patna High Court. It is also pleaded in the Writ Application that by judging the ability, experience and standing at the Bar of an Advocate, the objective tests of number of filings, appearances and conduct of cases in the. Court independently have never been adopted in the past in the Patna High Court. It is also submitted that test of proper professional conduct and morality - inherent and essential for any such distinction to be bestowed by the High Court on an Advocate, has also never been applied in the past. It is stated in Para-13 as under:- - "That it is a well known and undisputable fact that many advocates, designated as senior in the past, do not have even one appearance per day and at times per week also. It is also a well known and undisputable fact that many Senior Advocates, designated in the past, have not conducted a single case in the Court at the final stage of hearing independently and as on today they engage other Senior Advocates to appear at the final stage of case on their behalf. Records can also show that many advocates, designated as Senior in the past had not even one engagement per week in the High Court and they never appeared and conducted a case at final stage independently before their such designation by the Patna High Court. Moreover, this is also well known that, many a advocates, designated as Senior in the past, if put to acid test of morality and good professional conduct, would not have qualified for such designation". 6. It is also submitted that this designation of a Senior can be conferred upon a practising lawyer, who is regularly practising in the High Court of Patna. The submission, in fact, is that the High Court has conferred the designation on such persons, who are incompetent, who are not regularly practising and one of the lawyers stated before the petitioner and others that he was directed by the High Court to submit the application for his designation as Senior. On these allegations, the petitioner says that the fact is clearly established that entire proceedings for designating Senior was stage-managed to favour some of the lawyers who managed to become intimate and favourite of some of the Judges. On these allegations, the petitioner says that the fact is clearly established that entire proceedings for designating Senior was stage-managed to favour some of the lawyers who managed to become intimate and favourite of some of the Judges. In Para-16 the following pleadings have been raised :- - "That, however, past records and decisions of the Patna High Court on administrative side in the matter will apparently show that the vagueness spread all over the said Part-A has enabled in Patna High Court to completely shut its eyes from the essential objective tests relevant for coming to a decision in the case of individual candidates and the discretion of bestowing designation of "Senior" available to it in the said part has wrongly been used in majority of the, otherwise, undeserving cases." 7. The petitioner virtually has condemned the High Court by saying that the High Court was acting incompetent, it was not applying the test as required in the Act and the Rules and at the same time it was favouring those who are the blue-eyed-babies of the Judges or have close intimacy with the Judges. According to him, people who do not have the briefs or do not have appearances every day have been designated as Seniors. The submission is that the High Court on the administrative side taking undue advantage of the Rules and the vagueness as contained in sec. 16 (1)(2) and (3) is simply obliging certain persons and at the same time is rejecting the lawful claims of many others. 8. It is to be noted that on 24.1.2005 we required the petitioner to give the full and complete details of the pleadings made in Paras-13 and 16 of the Writ Application. The petitioner submitted his affidavit on 5.2.2005. Instead of giving the details sought from him, he simply stated that the statements made in Paras-13, 16 and 17 were based on general perceptions and observations in the High Court during his day to day functioning as a practising Advocate of the Court. He also stated in the affidavit that he does not wish to amend the pleadings contained in the Writ Application and he does not choose to say anything more than what he had already said. For other pleadings raised by him, it is submitted that the same are based on his general perceptions and watching the practising lawyers in the High Court. For other pleadings raised by him, it is submitted that the same are based on his general perceptions and watching the practising lawyers in the High Court. He also stated that under the established practice and procedure, he cannot be forced to make statements and amend the pleadings. In relation to Para-19, he has further stated that the statements were made before him in presence of Sri Deo Narain Yadav, Sri P.K. Shahi, Sri Shyam Kishore Sharma, Sri Gauranga Chatterjee during the lunch hours on his table while he and other advocates were having lunch. At the time of the arguments, we asked the petitioner that if he does not give the reasons of all those pleadings and does not name those persons against whom such serious allegations were made then such pleadings were likely to be ignored being general in nature, vague in impression and cryptic in details, the petitioner submitted that he was not ready and willing to say anything further. 9. We gave fullest opportunity to the petitioner, learned counsel for the High Court and learned counsel, for the Union of India to submit their arguments. We have heard them fully. 10. The petitioner submitted that classification of the lawyers is irrational and the classification has no nexus with the object of the Act. According to him, Sec. 16 does not provide any guidelines and the powers conferred upon the Judges of the High Court and the Supreme Court are absolutely unguided and unbridled and therefore the provisions of the Act confer arbitrary powers upon the Judges to select the persons of their choice. According to him, an honour can be conferred by the Sovereign only and in the present matter the power to confer an honour has been conferred upon the Judges of the High Court and the same would be contrary to the basic structure of the Constitution. The High Court is required to exercise the judicial powers and the executive powers of conferring honours cannot be exercised by the High Court. It is also his case that contrary to Art. 18 of the Constitution of India a title is sought to be conferred u/s. 16 of the Advocates Act and as such the provisions are contrary to law. It is also his case that contrary to Art. 18 of the Constitution of India a title is sought to be conferred u/s. 16 of the Advocates Act and as such the provisions are contrary to law. He submits that the High Court Rules are also ultra vires the Act and the Constitution because the Judges of the High Court while framing the Rules have conferred such powers upon them which the Constitution never sought to confer upon them. For Mr. Vikash Singh, it is submitted that he is not a lawyer ordinarily practising in this Court, therefore, the notification issued in his favour deserves to be quashed. On the other hand, learned counsel for the High Court so also for the Union of India have submitted that Art. 18 is not a fundamental right but in fact is an injunction against the citizen that they shall not receive any title. It is also submitted that conferring the honour of a Senior on an Advocate is not conferring a title but is simply acknowledging his standing and ability. It is also submitted by them that sec. 16 of the Act, if is read with its objects and reasons, it would clearly appear that the framers of the Constitution so also the legislature were of the opinion that different classes must be made amongst the lawyers so that everybody works for achieving the excellence. It is submitted that Art. 51-A refers to fundamental duties and requires from every citizen that he must achieve excellence. According to them, if somebody alive to his fundamental duties which is to achieve excellence then such an achievement is to be appreciated by the authority which is competent to examine the same. It is also submitted that even if it is a class within the class then too the consideration is in an open area and it is not fenced by the barbed wire. According to them any person who achieves excellence is entitled to enter in the arena of Seniors because it is a continuous process. They submit that the Judges of the High Court or the Supreme Court have to look into the facts, have to look into the ability, capability, standing etc. According to them any person who achieves excellence is entitled to enter in the arena of Seniors because it is a continuous process. They submit that the Judges of the High Court or the Supreme Court have to look into the facts, have to look into the ability, capability, standing etc. of a counsel because they are the best Judges to Judge all the merits and only under such circumstances the power has been conferred upon them to declare a particular lawyer as a Senior Advocate. It is also submitted that if any person can write that he is an advocate then writing that he is an advocate is not a title but is designation of the profession and similarly suffix of Senior Advocate would also be designation of the profession. It is submitted that the High Court and the Supreme Court are entitled to make their own Rules for running the business of their Courts and if under the rule making authority they have framed the Rules for achieving the objectives of sec. 16 of the Advocates Act, nothing wrong can be found in the Rules. It is also submitted that the petitioner has no locus to challenge the orders passed by the High Court because he himself did not apply for such designation and so far as the question of addressing the Court first is concerned, it would not make much difference because a Senior Lawyer, who even is not otherwise so designated, may be given right of audience by the Court or by the Junior colleagues to show respect to the seniors and as such it is a question of discipline and not of conferral of any title. It is also submitted that validity of an Act can be challenged only on the ground of lack of competence and of violation of the fundamental rights. It is submitted that the petitioner has not come out with the case that the Parliament suffered lack of competence or the Act has violated the fundamental rights of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the Advocates Act is codification of various Acts and the Act has been brought into effect for betterment of the lawyers. It is further submitted that sec. It is further submitted that the Advocates Act is codification of various Acts and the Act has been brought into effect for betterment of the lawyers. It is further submitted that sec. 16 (4) provides that if the person has already been declared as a Senior Advocate then he would continue to hold the said status and if the petitioner does not challenge sec. 16 (4) he cannot be allowed to challenge Sub-sec. (1), (2) and (3) of sec. 16. It is then submitted that the restrictions have been put on Seniors that after the designation or status is conferred upon them they can simply pleaded and cannot act. It is also submitted that sec. 16 (2) talks of conferment of the designation and every person who feels that he is competent and is entitled to such conferment can always apply. Referring to Articles 73 and 162 of the Constitution of India it is submitted that the Executive can confer powers on any authority and in relation to the present subject the High Court and the Supreme Court being the highest authority in their respective legal areas, the Union of India was justified in conferring the powers upon the High Court. It is submitted that if the powers are conferred upon the Legislature or any Administrative Body or the Bar Council or the Bar Association then it is likely to lead to a chaotic situation because such persons/authority would have no opportunity to see the working of that lawyer and at the same time they would be conferring status upon him. It is also submitted that Mr. Vikash Singh is a lawyer enrolled in the Bar Council of Patna and he had been appearing in this Court. It is prayed by the other side that the petitioner has made contemptuous allegations against the Judges and against the High Court and has sought to lower down the status of the High Court to an Administrative Authority simpliciter. They submitted that the nature of the allegations would clearly show that at the behest of someone this Writ Application has been filed or rather it is a sponsored petition and through the agency of the petitioner the Judges are being maligned and abused. It is lastly submitted that an action under the Contempt of Courts Act must be drawn and the petitioner be fixed with liability of costs. 11. sec. It is lastly submitted that an action under the Contempt of Courts Act must be drawn and the petitioner be fixed with liability of costs. 11. sec. 16 of The Advocates Act, 1961 reads as under:- - "Senior and other Advocates.-- (1) There shall be two classes of advocates, namely, Senior Advocates and other Advocates. (2) An advocate may, with his consent, be designated as Senior Advocate if the Supreme Court or a High Court is of opinion that by virtue of his ability, standing at the Bar or special knowledge or experience in law he is deserving of such distinction. (3) Senior Advocates shall, in the matter of their practice, be subject to such restrictions as the Bar Council of India may, in the interest of the legal profession, prescribe. (4) An Advocate of the Supreme Court who was a Senior Advocate of that Court immediately before the appointed day shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be a Senior Advocate: Provided that where any such Senior Advocate makes an application before the 31st December, 1965 to the Bar Council maintaining the roll in which his name has been entered that he does not desire to continue as a Senior Advocate, the Bar Council may grant the application and the roll shall be altered accordingly." 12. It would appear from the Introduction of The Advocates Act, 1961 that after independence it was deeply felt that the Judicial Administration in India should be changed according to the needs of the time. The Law Commission was assigned the job of preparing a report on the Reform of Judicial Administration. In the meanwhile the All India Bar Committee went into details of the matter and made its recommendations in 1953. To implement the recommendations of the All India Bar Committee and after taking into account the recommendations of the Law Commission on the subject of Reform of Judicial Administration insofar as the recommendations relate to the Bar and to legal education, a Comprehensive Bill was introduced in the Parliament. The Bill sought to implement the recommendations of the All India Bar Committee made in 1953, after taking into account the recommendations of the Law Commission on the subject of Reform of Judicial Administration insofar as the recommendations relate to the Bar and to legal education. The Bill sought to implement the recommendations of the All India Bar Committee made in 1953, after taking into account the recommendations of the Law Commission on the subject of Reform of Judicial Administration insofar as the recommendations relate to the Bar and to legal education. The Statement of objects and reasons referred to the features of the Bill and clearly say that the All India Bar Council would be established and a common roll of advocates and advocate on the common roll having a right to practise in any part of the country and in any Court, including the Supreme Court. The Act provides the integration of the Bar into a single class of legal practitioners known as advocates; it also provides the division of advocates into Senior advocates and other advocates based on merit. Following the recommendations of the All India Bar Committee and the Law Commission, the Bill recognises the continued existence of the system known as the dual system now prevailing in the High Courts of Calcutta and Bombay, by making suitable provisions in that behalf, The Advocates Act, 1961 (Act 25 of 1961) repealed the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 and number of other laws on the subject. The Preamble of the Act says that it is an Act to amend and consolidate the law relating to legal practitioners and to provide for the Constitution of Bar Councils and an All India Bar. Clause (a) of Sub-sec. (1) of sec. 2 of the Act says - "Advocate" means an advocate entered in any roll under the provisions of this Act while Clause (i) of Sub-sec. (1) of sec. 2 defines - "Legal Practitioner" means an advocate or vakil of any High Court, a pleader, mukhar or revenue agent. There would be a marked distinction between an "Advocate" and a "Legal Practitioner". An "Advocate" would be a legal practitioner but every legal practitioner would not be an advocate. A "Mukhtar" or a "Revenue Agent" by no stretch of imagination can be treated as an advocate. sec. 16, as quoted above, says that there shall be two classes of advocates, namely, Senior Advocates and other advocates. According to Sub-sec. (2) of sec. An "Advocate" would be a legal practitioner but every legal practitioner would not be an advocate. A "Mukhtar" or a "Revenue Agent" by no stretch of imagination can be treated as an advocate. sec. 16, as quoted above, says that there shall be two classes of advocates, namely, Senior Advocates and other advocates. According to Sub-sec. (2) of sec. 16 of the Act, an advocate may, with his consent, be designated as Senior Advocate, if the Supreme Court or a High Court is of opinion that by virtue of his ability, standing at the Bar or special knowledge or experience in law he is deserving such distinction. According to Sub-sec. (3), Senior Advocates shall, in the matter of their practice, be subject to such restrictions as the Bar Council of India may, in the interest of the legal profession, prescribe. Even for the sake or repetition, we would refer to Sub-sec. (4) of sec. 16 of the Act which provides that an Advocate of the Supreme Court, who was a Senior Advocate of that Court immediately before the appointed day shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be a Senior Advocate. sec. 16 in itself is a complete Code. It simply provides that there shall be two categories of advocates - senior and other advocates. sec. 16 does nowhere says that a person who is not designated as a Senior Advocate or upon whom such a distinction is not conferred would be deemed to be an inferior advocate. Sub-sec. (1) of Section 16 simply provides that from the total number of the advocates, the best is to be picked up after examining his ability, standing at the Bar or special knowledge or experience in law, for conferment of the distinction "Senior Advocate" and rest of the persons would continue to be the advocates. It is also to be seen from Sub-sec. (2) that an advocate may, with his consent, be designated as Senior Advocate, if the Supreme Court or a High Court is of the opinion that by virtue of his ability, standing at the Bar or special knowledge or experience in law, he is deserving of such distinction. A fair and juxtapose reading of Sub-sec. (1) and (2) of sec. (2) that an advocate may, with his consent, be designated as Senior Advocate, if the Supreme Court or a High Court is of the opinion that by virtue of his ability, standing at the Bar or special knowledge or experience in law, he is deserving of such distinction. A fair and juxtapose reading of Sub-sec. (1) and (2) of sec. 16 of the Act would make it clear that the words - "two classes of advocates" have been used but the intention of the Legislature was that such person alone be designated as "Senior Advocate" who satisfies the tough test or shows that by virtue of his ability etc. he deserves such a distinction. The law nowhere says that a title is to be conferred upon an advocate or conferral of the status or distinction would make him something beyond an advocate. 13. The petitioner has repeatedly submitted that the Constitution of India forbids conferral of the title, therefore, no title could be conferred upon any advocate that he is senior in comparison to others. 14. At this stage, we would prefer to refer to Art. 18 of the Constitution of India. It reads as under:- - "Article 18. (1) No title, not being a military of academic distinction, shall be conferred by the State. (2) No citizen of India shall accept any title from any foreign State. (3) No person who is not a citizen of India shall, while he holds any office of profit or trust under the State, accept without the consent of the President any title from any foreign State. (4) No person holding any office of profit or trust under the State shall, without the consent of the President, accept any present, emolument, or office of any, kind from or under any foreign State." 15. In enacting Art. 18 (1), the framers of the Constitution sought to put an end to the practice followed by the British in respect of conferment of titles. The Constitution, therefore, prohibited titles of nobility and all other titles that carry suffixes or prefixes to the names of the holders as they result in creation of a distinct unequal class of citizens. The Constitution, therefore, prohibited titles of nobility and all other titles that carry suffixes or prefixes to the names of the holders as they result in creation of a distinct unequal class of citizens. According to the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Balaji Raghawan V/s. Union of India, (1996) 1 SCC 361 , the framers of the Constitution did not intend that the State should not officially recognise merit or work of an extraordinary nature. The Supreme Court observed that the National Awards are not violative of the principles of equality. The Apex Court was also of the opinion that Art. 51-A speaks of fundamental duties of every citizen of India and in view of these fundamental duties particularly under Art. 51-A (j), it is necessary that there should be a system of awards and decorations to recognise excellence in the performance of these duties. The Supreme Court observed that the National Awards do not amount to titles within the meaning of Art. 18 (1) and they should not be used as suffixes or prefixes to names. 16. We must immediately accept the arguments of the respondents that Art. 18, in fact, is an injunction against the State so also against its citizens that no title not being a military or academic distinction, shall be conferred by the State and no citizen of India shall accept any title from any foreign State. On one side the State has been injuncted from conferring the title, not being a military or academic distinction and at the same time a citizen of this country has been injuncted from receiving/accepting any title from any foreign State. We must also refer to the Preamble of the Constitution of India which reads as under:- - "WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens: JUSTICE, social, economic and political; LIBERTY of though, expression, belief, faith and worship; EQUALITY of status and of opportunity; and to promote among them all FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation;........" 17. Art. 18, in fact, refers to the EQUALITY clause enshrined in the Preamble wherein it says that there would be equality of status and of opportunity. Art. 18, in fact, refers to the EQUALITY clause enshrined in the Preamble wherein it says that there would be equality of status and of opportunity. When the Preamble of the Constitution says that JUSTICE, social, economic and political; LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; EQUALITY of status and of opportunity shall be secured to all its citizens and FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation shall be promoted amongst all of them then EQUALITY clause is to be understood in its true perspective. Art. 18, clearly provides that the EQUALITY would not be breached and therefore Art. 18 is an injunction against the State so also its citizens; the basic reason behind that is that the EQUALITY as assured in the Constitution and enshrined in the Preamble is maintained. The question still would be that whether conferring a distinction would tantamount to conferring a title. In our humble opinion, a title would be something different than a distinction; a distinction may be in form of the superlatives, one may compare two citizens and may say that one has better civic understanding in comparison to another and therefore he is a good citizen; for a Doctor, it may be said that he is good in comparison to another Doctor; for a Lawyer, it may be said that his presentation and understanding is better in comparison to another; in every sphere of life, comparison would always be there but the EQUALITY clause would not come in the way when people are comparing one to another. The petitioner probably is be labouring under a misconception that conferral of a distinction is conferral of a title. A perusal of sec. 16(1) and 16 (2) of The Advocates Act and its fair understanding would make it clear that a distinction would be conferred on advocate and not a title. A distinction is to be achieved, is to be given to one who is better in comparison to others, if the better qualifications, standing £t Bar are given a go-bye under the name of the EQUALITY clause then Art. 51 -A (j) would lose its importance and would become redundant. Art. 51 -A (j) expects from every citizen that he shall strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity, so that the Nation constantly rises to higher levels of endeavour and achievement. Art. 51 -A (j) expects from every citizen that he shall strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity, so that the Nation constantly rises to higher levels of endeavour and achievement. If the excellence is not acknowledged then nobody would make any effort and would leave the things where those are. A person tries his best to show his best because he understands that the excellence achieved by him or the ultimate performed by him would be recognised by somebody, would be recongnised some day by somebody. If the concept of recognition is lost then nobody would do good or better nor would make an attempt to do the best. The endeavour of every citizen is to do a little better than his best, the progress is never ending. An advocate if satisfies a particular person and he becomes content then the wheel of progress would come to a grinding halt; it is the hunger to do better which compels a man to strive towards the excellence. If somebody feels or takes it for granted that despite his best effort he is not to achieve anything or even a distinction is not to be conferred upon him then he would join the mob and would not do anything for achieving anything better. In our various system, seniority and merits are two different things. In the service arena, sometimes the promotions are given on basis of merit-cum-seniority and sometimes on basis of seniority-cum-merit, as the case may be. At least in the legal profession, the distinction is not conferred either on basis of standing alone or on basis of merits only. One has to prove his worth, ability, standing and excellence. When all these things are forged together, a person would certainly be conferred a distinction of a Senior Advocate. In our humble opinion, the petitioners submission that by sec. 16 (1)(2)(3) of the Advocates Act, a class within the class is sought to be made is absolutely misconceived. His submission that a title is sought to be conferred is also misconceived. 18. The petitioners submission is that the powers of conferring a distinction could not have been delegated to the Supreme Court or the High Court. In our opinion, this argument is based on misconception of realities of the life. His submission that a title is sought to be conferred is also misconceived. 18. The petitioners submission is that the powers of conferring a distinction could not have been delegated to the Supreme Court or the High Court. In our opinion, this argument is based on misconception of realities of the life. If the power is not conferred upon the High Court or the Supreme Court, which every day Judges the performance of the lawyer, his standing, ability, expertise etc. then the power could only be conferred upon Legislature or the Bar Council or the Bar Associations etc. If such powers of conferring distinction are conferred upon the above referred Institutions then it is likely to create a problematic situation. It is commonly known that in every District or in every Tehsil or wherever the Courts are situated, Bar Associations are established. If every Bar Association starts conferring distinctions upon its Members then the distinction would lose its importance. A distinction is not to be offered like the cakes or at the drop of the hat nor can it be purchased in the markets. The distinction is to be conferred upon the best out of the rest. If the power is conferred upon the Bar Council then again there would be the same problem. The Members of the Bar Council come from different wards of the State; number of them even do not know the lawyers who are practising in the High Court or at the different places. When the Rule says that the advocate to be designated as Senior Advocate shall be not less than 10 years standing, ordinarily practising within the jurisdiction of the Patna High Court then every person would rush to the Bar Council for conferral of the distinction. The Act says that it the Supreme Court or a High Court is of the opinion that by virtue of his ability, standing at the Bar or special knowledge or experience in law, a particular advocate is deserving of such distinction then he may be designated as Senior Advocate. Members of the Bar Council do not have the opportunity to see a particular advocate practising before a particular Court. In our humble opinion, it would not be possible for the Members of the Bar Council to Judge the ability or special knowledge or experience in law of a particular advocate. Members of the Bar Council do not have the opportunity to see a particular advocate practising before a particular Court. In our humble opinion, it would not be possible for the Members of the Bar Council to Judge the ability or special knowledge or experience in law of a particular advocate. If the powers cannot be properly exercised by the Judges of the High Court, who by virtue of their oath, are discharging their judicial functions then what is the guarantee that the Members of the Bar would not make abusive allegations against the Bar Council. If the High Court Judges or the Supreme Court Judges are not spared of the allegations of favouritism, nepotism etc. then an ordinary advocate who becomes the Member of the Bar Council, in our opinion, would not be spared. At this juncture it is also necessary to note that for becoming a Member of the Bar Council of the State it is not necessary that one must be a designated Senior Advocate. It would be travesty of law and fallacy of the situation that a person who himself is not a designated Senior Advocate simply because he is a Member of the Bar Council would be conferring distinctions on others in a manner where a person who is untrained is imparting training to others. If the powers are given to the Legislature then again the problem would be that how the Legislature or a committee constituted by the Legislature can Judge the work of a lawyer. It may be true to some extent that some lawyers appear before the Administrative Authorities or the Secretaries in the Secretariat etc. but it is also important to note that most of the lawyers do not appear before the Executive Officers. From where the Legislature or the committee constituted by it would have the opportunity to examine the ability, special knowledge or experience in law of a particular lawyer. The Legislature in its wisdom has conferred the power upon the authorities such as the Supreme Court and the High Court who are watching every day the ability of a particular lawyer, testing his special knowledge and are benefited by his experience in law. The Legislature in its wisdom has conferred the power upon the authorities such as the Supreme Court and the High Court who are watching every day the ability of a particular lawyer, testing his special knowledge and are benefited by his experience in law. A lawyer/advocate when appears before the Court or a Judge then he only does not present the case of his client but he presents his personality and the personality being a wider term would include his ability, special knowledge in relation to the subject or otherwise and his vast, varied and detailed experience in law. It would be too much to say that the powers have been delegated to the Supreme Court or the High Court for conferring the distinction/designation as Senior Advocate. In fact, sec. 16 of the Act simply confers powers upon the Supreme Court or the High Court to designate somebody as Senior Advocate and confer a distinction. The petitioners submissions that the powers have been delegated and the same are unbridled do not stand to logic. 19. A fair understanding of sec. 16 (2) read with the Rules of the Patna High Court would make it clear that while conferring the distinction the High Court would not only be considering the ability, standing at the Bar or special knowledge or experience in law but would also consider the totality of the subject. Rule 2 of the Patna High Court Rules runs in conformity with Sub-sec. (2) of sec. 16 of the Act. Similarly Rule 1 also runs in conformity with Sub-sec. (2) of sec. 16 of the Act. The other Rules provide the manner of making the application. When a designation is to be conferred or a distinction is to be awarded then a process has to be evolved. While awarding Padma Awards, in accordance with the directions of the Supreme Court, the committee has to examine number of the things; it will have to examine that what are the special reasons for giving the Padma Award. The High Court while conferring the distinction would look into the totality of the circumstances and would consider the application made by an advocate. The High Court while conferring the distinction would look into the totality of the circumstances and would consider the application made by an advocate. According to Rule 3, the advocate himself can make an application and all such applications will be considered by the Chief Justice and the Judges and all such applicants whom the Judges may record as deserving for distinction of being designated as Senior Advocates by virtue of ability, experience, standing at Bar etc. may be designated as Senior Advocate. Rule 1 on the other hand provides that the Chief Justice and the Judges may, with the consent of an advocate, designate the advocate as Senior Advocate, if in their opinion by virtue of his ability, experience and standing at the Bar, the said advocate is deserving of such distinction. Rule 1 and Rule 3 apply in different situations. Rule 3 requires an application by an advocate while Rule 1 provides that the Chief Justice and the Judges of their own, however, with the consent of an advocate, may confer the distinction. The consent of the advocate for purposes of Rule 1 is necessary because the moment an advocate is designated as Senior Advocate, he would be put under restrictions or it may be that a person may not like to become a designated Senior Advocate because he may not like to be chained and would like to remain free of such restrictions. The Chief Justice and the Judges while taking up the case voluntarily are obliged to take consent of an advocate. The consent of the advocate is not required in Rule 3 because making of an application by him shows that he is agreeable to conferral of the designation. At this stage, we would like to consider the submissions of the petitioner that a practising advocate of this Court made statements before number of the persons that he was asked by the High Court to make an application. The allegations against the High Court, in fact, are that the High Court invited the lawyer to make application so that he may be conferred the distinction of a Senior Advocate. It is really painful and unpalatable to us that a practising advocate of this Court has made such allegations against the High Court. The allegations against the High Court, in fact, are that the High Court invited the lawyer to make application so that he may be conferred the distinction of a Senior Advocate. It is really painful and unpalatable to us that a practising advocate of this Court has made such allegations against the High Court. The petitioner should have understood that if the Chief Justice or the Judges of this Court wanted to confer the distinction then the proposal could be floated by them on the table. If the Judges want an honour to be conferred or a distinction to be bestowed to a particular person then an application under Rule 3 was not needed. The Judges showing their nepotism or favouritism could have conferred the distinction or designation upon any persons whether deserving or not. It is unfortunate that less appreciating the scheme of the Act and the true intent of the Rules, the petitioner who is quite senior in this profession has made these filthy, abusive and absurd allegations against the whole High Court. We would again say that nobody can stop the High Court or the Chief Justice and the Judges of this Court from conferring any distinction upon anybody, if they were bent upon then an application was not needed, a proposal could be mooted and could be approved by all concerned. It is probably not known to the petitioner that before the applications are taken up for consideration the agenda is circulated along with the details of the lawyers. The petitioner, it appears, does not know that when the application of an advocate is taken up for consideration, it is discussed and every Judge gives his opinion on it. If there is any dispute then observing the democratic process secret votes are cast and then the majority of the Judges decides that whether the honour should be conferred upon a particular advocate for designating him as Senior Advocate or not. It is not the simple majority of 51% V/s. 49%. It has been decided in the Full Court meeting that the majority would not be less than 2/3rd of the present and voting. It is not the simple majority of 51% V/s. 49%. It has been decided in the Full Court meeting that the majority would not be less than 2/3rd of the present and voting. If 9 persons are present in the meeting then for deciding the simple majority the ratio of 5 : 4 is sufficient but in case of conferring the distinction of an advocate the majority on the basis of 2/3rd of the present and voting would be six. If six out of nine Judges find that the man is capable, has special knowledge or is experienced in law then none other than the Judges would be better Judge for judging the performance of an advocate. The petitioners submissions in fact are unfair and unfair to the High Court. These are bad and unpalatable. 20. For Mr. Vikash Singh it is submitted that he is not ordinarily practising in this Court. We fail to understand that on what basis the petitioner could say that he is not ordinarily practising in this Court. The petitioner made serious allegations against number of the seniors of this Court. We asked him to give the details but he for the reasons best known to him refused to give the further details. His conduct compels us to hold that simply to malign the majesty of the High Court and the Judges of this Court he has come out with such allegations that the High Court had been conferring distinctions on such persons who are not competent or who do not have one engagement per week. We do not know that what compelled the petitioner to say that many advocates designated as seniors in the past, if put to acid test of morality and good professional conduct would not have qualified for such distinctions. We do not know about whom the petitioner is talking about or the petitioner is moving in his own paradise. We pointedly asked the petitioner that on what basis he has said that conferral of distinction was a result of favouritism or nepotism, to which the petitioner simply said that it was his general perceptions. The reply given by the petitioner is again bad. A perception should not be a fanciful thing or an arbitrary approach towards the fact. A perception should be based on the facts, realities, experience of life and a truthful approach to the subject. The reply given by the petitioner is again bad. A perception should not be a fanciful thing or an arbitrary approach towards the fact. A perception should be based on the facts, realities, experience of life and a truthful approach to the subject. On one side, the petitioner says that the words - ability, experience, standing are vague terms but at the same time wants us to believe that his general perceptions and general experience should be given more weightage in comparison to the ability and the experience. We are sorry to record that the petitioner is trying to make fishy enquire is into the matter and was making absurd allegations. 21. The petitioner at one point of time requested us that the complete records relating to the applications be called in the Court and he be allowed to peruse the same. We allowed his prayer and called the records and perused the same but we did not allow him to look into the personal records of those advocates. We do not think that the petitioner has any authority to look into the records of all others. If the petitioner says that he has a right of information and the transparency should be made the rule of the day then we expect that the petitioner would be honest to his words and would give the information to us which we were seeking from him. For him secrecy is the code and for us transparency is the rule. We the Judges are not subordinate to the lawyers. If the Judges have been conferred an authority to choose better people in comparison to others then some scope or some discretion is to be left in their favour. After all a jeweller can Judge the diamond and can value it properly, ever gem has its own value but some are better in comparison to others and if the best is segregated and put at a higher pedestal then there is nothing discriminatory and the EQUALITY clause enshrined in the preamble of the Constitution is not affected. The respondents are certainly justified in saying that A days lily is better than 100 years old oak. The respondents are certainly justified in saying that A days lily is better than 100 years old oak. It is a common experience in almost every Court that people who are in the profession for number of the years are not considered for conferring the distinction but the young, energetic lawyers who otherwise are able, experienced in law and are better in comparison to others have been conferred the distinction. The distinction is not to be conferred just for the sake of asking; the distinction is to be conferred after examining the incumbent on the anvil of ability, special knowledge or experience in law. 22. We are unable to hold that sec. 16 (1)(2) and (3) of the Advocates Act, 1961 are ultra vires the Constitution or the Legislature as conferred unbridled authority or uncanalised powers upon the High Court or the Supreme Court. We are also unable to hold that Chapter XXIV, Part-A of the Rules relating to conferral of the distinction on the Advocates as Senior Advocate are ultra vires the Constitution or the Advocates Act. We are also unable to hold that Annexure-1 issued by the High Court bestowing distinction as Senior Advocates is bad under the law. We are unable to hold that the petitioner could make out any ground for our interference in the matter. The petitioner is absolutely unjustified in raising all these submissions. 23. It would be necessary for us to refer to the judgments of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1996 SC 1627 , para-45 State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. V/s. McDowell and Company and Ors., wherein the Supreme Court has observed that the validity of the Act cannot be challenged in the air, the validity can be challenged only if the authority was not competent to make the law or the Act or the law is violative of the fundamental rights. So far as the competence of the Legislature is concerned, we are absolutely satisfied that Entries 77 and 78 of List-1 of Schedule 7 and Entry 26 of List-III, of Schedule VII confer powers upon the Parliament. The entries are such which would include everything within their sweep. So far as the competence of the Legislature is concerned, we are absolutely satisfied that Entries 77 and 78 of List-1 of Schedule 7 and Entry 26 of List-III, of Schedule VII confer powers upon the Parliament. The entries are such which would include everything within their sweep. Entries 77 and 78 of the Union List refer to Constitution, organisation, jurisdiction and powers of the Supreme Court, including contempt of such Court, arid the fees taken therein; persons entitled to practise before the Supreme Court and Constitution and organisation including vacations of the High Courts except provisions as to officers and servants of High Courts; persons entitled to practise before the High Courts. Entry 26 of List-Ill includes legal, medical and other professions. In the matter of Navinchandra Mafatlal, Bombay V/s. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City, AIR 1955 SC 58 , Vol. 42 CN 14, para 6), the Supreme Court has observed that every entry should be given the widest meaning. If these two entries are taken in their true perspective it would certainly give powers to the Legislature to make a law or a codified law relating to the advocates. H.M. Seervai in his celebrated book - Constitutional Law of India, 4th Edition, has observed that it is believed that no case has directly held that delegation of wide discretionary powers are void because the State or any other body or authority on whom they have been conferred have power to use them to whenever they please. High standing of the Body or authority on whom wide discretionary powers have been conferred has been held relevant for upholding the grant of discretionary powers by the Supreme Court. According to the Supreme Court if the authority is on the higher pedestal then conferral of the discretionary powers would not be bad. In relation to conferral of the distinction if the powers have been conferred upon the High Court or the Supreme Court then it cannot be said that the powers have been conferred upon an authority which cannot use it properly. 24. It was submitted before us by the respondents that the language used in the Writ Application is bad, it does not befit an advocate of the petitioners standing or ability. 24. It was submitted before us by the respondents that the language used in the Writ Application is bad, it does not befit an advocate of the petitioners standing or ability. It was submitted that by making the allegations against the Judges of the High Court relating to favouritism, nepotism, intimacy and personal relationship the petitioner was abusing the Institution and therefore action should be taken against him under the Contempt of Courts Act. In our opinion, we must leave the petitioner to have self-introspection. We would simply say - Let dawn of wisdom come upon him, let him open his eyes and come out of the darkness to the light. The last words of the Jesus, would be apt to quote - O My Father in Heavens, forgive them because they know not what they are doing. We do not think that we must forget the old saying that a slap in response to a slap would never be good. The petitioner may be a misguided man and in his zeal to help a few and condemn others had crossed his limits. We would simply request him that he being an officer of this Court must not forget that survival of all of us including him is based upon the confidence, which we repose in each other. If an advocate starts abusing the Judges then the public would abuse the Judges and nobody would be safe. When a lawyer becomes litigant then he must not forget that he is an advocate. At that point of time, he should act like an honest litigant and a disciplined advocate. He has double role to play, on one side he has a personal case as a litigant and a public cause as an advocate. If he does not maintain the dignity and decorum of this Court and uses filthy and abusive language against the Judges Of this Court and the whole system then the days would not be far off that nobody would respect anybody. Personal causes should not lead to unruly behaviour in the Court because the Courts are considered to be the temples of Justice where everybody is equal and the Judges dispense Justice. If the petitioner goes on acting like this the days would not be far off when somebody would say to him that "Thou too Brutus". 25. Personal causes should not lead to unruly behaviour in the Court because the Courts are considered to be the temples of Justice where everybody is equal and the Judges dispense Justice. If the petitioner goes on acting like this the days would not be far off when somebody would say to him that "Thou too Brutus". 25. After giving our anxious considerations to the facts and in view findings aforesaid, we do not think that we are required to interfere in the matter. The petition is dismissed. 26. At one point of time we wanted to impose heavy costs upon the petitioner but we think that what we have said above is more than imposition of costs.