Judgment was reserved on Saturday in a legal action over a requirement by new Queen's Counsel in Northern Ireland to "well and truly serve the Queen" when they are sworn in this week in the High Court in Belfast.
The action was brought by Mr Seamus Treacy and Mr Barry Macdonald, who are among a dozen new QCs appointed last month and due to be sworn in tomorrow before the Lord Chief Justice, Sir Robert Carswell.
But in the High Court on Saturday Mr Michael Lavery QC, argued that the declaration to serve the Queen was discriminatory because it affronted their political sensibilities.
Mr Lavery was applying for leave to seek a judicial review of the decision by the Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine, to insist on the same declaration as applies in England and Wales.
The Bar Council of Northern Ireland adopted a new declaration in June, 1997, which merely calls on new QCs to promise that they "will well and truly serve all I may be called upon to serve".
Mr Lavery said the impugned declaration was contrary to the Belfast Agreement, which recognised that a person could be either British or Irish or both. He said the agreement made it clear that a person should not be required to do anything which diminished their esteem or was contrary to their political principles.
"It is anomalous that a person can become a Minister in the government and not be required to make such a declaration," said Mr Lavery.
He referred to an affidavit sworn by Mr Brian Fee QC, chairman of the Bar Council, who said he expected the new form of declaration adopted by the council to be used at next Tuesday's swearing-in ceremony.
"The Good Friday agreement recognises those people who do not regard the Queen and the institutions of the State in the same way as the majority of the people of Northern Ireland," said Mr Lavery.
"Traditionally, the nationalist position is that the Queen is not the head of the country and that Ireland should be united. This declaration contains the implicit recognition of the Queen as the Head of State and the intention is to get QCs to reaffirm that."
Mr Justice Kerr reserved judgment until today, saying he would require affidavits specifying when the two barristers became aware that the oath would be required.
The new declaration adopted by the Bar Council followed an application for judicial review brought by another barrister, Mr Philip Magee, in 1997.
On Saturday, Mr Magee issued a statement saying that the Lord Chancellor's declaration was "in truth, the genteel equivalent of putting a picture of the Queen on a Catholic worker's machine".
He added: "The English Lord Chancellor would do well to understand that the days of the tacky `obedienza' rendered in private before the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland are over, done and gone. "The declaration is seen by many barristers as being simply a political test of loyalty to embarrass and, if possible, to weed out the `croppy with attitude'."
Mr Magee said he hoped every prospective senior counsel would refuse to "walk under a javelin" in front of the Lord Chief Justice on Tuesday.
"I will personally support them in asserting the independence of the legal profession should they choose to do so," he added.