Senior Designation| Due consideration to be given to female and first-generation lawyers: Supreme Court
On pending applications for senior designation, the Court has said that the new norms shall apply, and the exercise to be undertaken now would have to include the existing applications. Such candidates can be given the time to update or replace their applications in light of the new norms laid down, the top court has added.
While modifying the guidelines for conferment of Senior Advocate designation, the Supreme Court on Friday held that due consideration should be given in the interest of diversity, particularly with respect to gender and first-generation lawyers.
"This would encourage meritorious advocates who will come into the field knowing that there is scope to rise to the top. The profession has seen a paradigm shift over a period of time, particularly with the advent of newer law schools such as National Law Universities. The legal profession is no longer considered as a family profession. Instead, there are newer entrants from all parts of the country and with different backgrounds. Such newcomers must be encouraged...", a bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Aravind Kumar has said.
On younger advocates, the Supreme Court has said that they are naturally not precluded from applying for designation, particularly as the 2018 Guidelines do not require anything more than ten years of practice.
"However, we believe that such advocates would have to display that extra bit of ability to be designated", Top Court has said.
Adding that the Supreme Court rests on a different footing as the highest court of the land and designations in the Supreme Court in comparison to High Courts have usually taken place at the age of 45 plus, the three-judge bench has added,
"While we would not like to restrict applications only to advocates who are above 45 years of age, only exceptional advocates should be designated below this age. We say no more and leave this aspect to the wisdom of the Permanent Committee and the Full Court."
Referring to ASG Madhavi Divan's submission that since designation exercise has become elaborate, it would be very difficult to undertake the process twice a year, the Top court has observed,
"..... the process should be carried out at least once a year so that applications do not accumulate. In this respect, some disturbing instances have emerged from certain High Courts where the exercise of designation has not been undertaken for many years. As a consequence, meritorious advocates at the relevant time lose out on the opportunity of being considered for designation."
Case Title: MS. INDIRA JAISING vs. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, THROUGH SECRETARY GENERAL