BREAKING: Supreme Court Issues Fresh Guidelines On Senior Advocate Designation, Discontinues Marking System
The Supreme Court today delivered a significant judgment revisiting and refining the procedure for the designation of Senior Advocates across constitutional courts, effectively setting aside certain directions previously laid down in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India [(2017) and (2023) modifications].
The Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti issued the verdict.
Justice Abhay S. Oka, who authored the opinion, stated that diversity must be prioritized in the designation process and laid down comprehensive criteria for assessing an advocate's standing at the Bar. The Court categorically held that directions contained in paragraph 70.1 of the 2017 judgment, as modified in 2023, will not be implemented.
Key Directions
1. High Courts must frame or amend rules in conformity with the present decision within four months.
2. The authority to designate Senior Advocates shall rest with the Full Court of the Supreme Court or the respective High Court.
3. Applications found eligible by the Permanent Committee must be placed before the Full Court with all supporting documents.
4. While consensus is preferable, in its absence, democratic decision-making via voting must be adopted. Whether voting is to be by secret ballot will be left to the discretion of each court depending on context.
Continuation of Application System
The Court upheld the existing practice of advocates applying for designation, clarifying that such applications imply the advocate’s consent. However, the Full Court may also suo motu confer designation in deserving cases, even if no application has been submitted.
Individual Recommendations Barred
Invoking Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, the Court ruled that individual judges of the Supreme Court or High Courts cannot recommend Advocates for designation, reinforcing institutional transparency.
Annual Designation Mandate
The Court mandated that at least one designation exercise be held annually. Ongoing processes initiated under Indira Jaising I and II will continue under the framework of those judgments. However, no new processes or applications shall be considered until the High Courts frame new rules in line with today’s decision.
Discontinuation of Marking System
The Bench also declared that the controversial marking system has been scrapped.
Acknowledgement of Contributions
The Bench recorded its appreciation for the assistance provided by members of the Bar and paid a special tribute to Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, acknowledging her pivotal role in initiating a constructive debate that led to the evolution of the current system. "Her efforts to ensure objectivity and transparency must be lauded," the Court said.
Background
Pertinently, the Bench had reserved the judgment on March 20.
It is to be noted that on March 16, the Supreme Court had said that the process for designation of senior advocates needs reconsideration on several points, including on question of seeking applications, conducting interviews, and holding secret ballots and ignoring trial court lawyers for it.
The Bench had said that the best possible system should be devised for the process to be undertaken in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961 and ultimately, the endeavour of all stakeholders must be that we should have a system in which only deserving advocates get the designation.
"The role of a designated senior advocate in our legal system is of considerable importance. Those who are designated senior advocates have a different status and high standing in the legal system. Therefore, it is imperative that only those advocates who deserve the designation in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 16 should be conferred designation. If undeserving candidates are designated as senior advocates, it affects the prestige and dignity of the institution of the judiciary, as it is the privilege of the High Courts and this Court to grant such designation," the Bench had said.
Considering a matter related to alleged misrepresentation of facts by a Senior Advocate, the Court had urged the Chief Justice of India to consider setting up a bench of appropriate strength to reconsider judgments delivered in 2017 and 2023 in Indira Jaising case on mandatory guidelines for conferring coveted senior advocate designation for a lawyer.
"Neither can we disagree with the two binding decisions nor can we take a contrary view. However, all that we are doing is expressing a few serious doubts and concerns. We propose to direct that this issue be placed before the Chief Justice of India to consider whether the issue needs to be reconsidered by a bench of appropriate strength," the Bench had said.
Case Title: Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Ors