SCBA Urges CJI to Relax Waiting Period for Senior Advocate Designation Under 2026 Guidelines

In a representation dated February 12, the SCBA flagged concerns with Paras 21 and 22 of the 2026 Guidelines, which mandate a two-year waiting period for Advocates-on-Record and Advocates whose applications were not considered favourably, and a one-year waiting period for those whose cases were deferred by the Full Court before they can apply afresh.

The Association pointed out that the Supreme Court has, in the past, relaxed similar restrictions to prevent undue prejudice to advocates whose applications were not rejected on merits or due to any disqualification.

Under Para 21, cases not favourably considered by the Full Court can only be reviewed after two years from the date of decision. Para 22 bars reconsideration of deferred cases for one year from the Full Court’s decision.

The SCBA, however, said it has received multiple representations from members of the Bar, particularly those considered in the previous designation cycle, highlighting that the rigid waiting periods unfairly delay reconsideration even in cases where deferment or non-consideration was procedural in nature.

Importantly, the SCBA drew attention to a March 14, 2024 notice issued by the Committee for Designation of Senior Advocates under the earlier 2023 Guidelines, where similar concerns were addressed.

That notice had permitted advocates whose cases were deferred to apply afresh without waiting for one year, and reduced the waiting period for those not considered favourably from two years to one year.

The Association argued that a comparable relaxation under the 2026 Guidelines would be consistent with past practice and institutional fairness.

The SCBA has urged the Chief Justice of India to consider two specific measures:

-Allowing Advocates-on-Record and advocates whose cases were not considered favourably to apply afresh after one year instead of two years, as presently mandated under Para 21.

-Permitting advocates whose cases were deferred by the Full Court to apply afresh irrespective of the one-year restriction under Para 22.

According to the SCBA, such relief would ensure that meritorious advocates are not penalised by procedural timelines where there is no adverse finding on eligibility or competence.

The representation underscores that the designation of Senior Advocates is not merely an individual honour but an institutional process that directly impacts the quality of advocacy before constitutional courts. Procedural rigidity, the SCBA cautioned, risks undermining confidence in the system if deserving candidates are made to wait for extended periods without substantive reasons.

The Association expressed appreciation for the Supreme Court’s ongoing efforts to refine and strengthen the designation framework and said that a calibrated relaxation would further enhance transparency and trust in the process. "The Supreme Court Bar Association remains grateful for the continued efforts of the Hon'ble Court in strengthening institutional processes and recognising excellence at the Bar," it said.