+91 964 334 1948
13 May 2025, 05:27 AM
In a major revisit of the senior designation process, the Supreme Court on Tuesday (May 13) directed that the point-based assessment by the Permanent Committee, which was evolved as per the judgments in Indira Jaising cases in 2017 and 2023, be discontinued.
As per the point-based process, a Permanent Committee comprising the Chief Justice and two senior most judges of the Supreme Court or the High Court, along with the Attorney General or the Advocate General of the State, as the case may be, has to award points to each applicant based on the criteria such as 20 points based on the number of practice years, 50 points for reported judgments, 5 points for publications and 25 points based on the interview.
Today, a three-judge bench, which was formed to revisit the Indira Jaising guidelines, directed that the point-based assessment for senior designation shall not be implemented by the Supreme Court or the High Courts.
A bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka, Ujjal Bhuyan and SVN Bhatti said that diversity and represenation for lawyers practising in the trial courts must be ensured.
Justice Oka read out the operative portion of the judgment as follows.
"We direct that the directions contained in paragraph 73.7 of Indira Jaising I as amended by Indira Jaising II shall not be implemented (the point-based assessment system)
It will be appropriate if all the High Courts frame rules in terms of what is held in this decision within a period of four months from today by amending or substituting the existing rules. The rules shall be amended keeping in view the following guidelines :
1. The Decision to confer designation shall be of the full court of the High Court or this Court.
2. The applications of all candidates found eligible by the permanent secretariat, along with relevant documents submitted by the applicants, shall be placed before the full house.
3. An endeavour should always be made to arrive at a consensus. However, if a consensus on the designation of advocates cannot be arrived at, the decision-making must be by a democratic method of voting. Whether in a given case there should be a secret ballot is a decision which can be best left to the High Court to take a call considering the facts and circumstances in a given case.
4. The minimum qualification of 10 years of practice fixed by Indira Jaising I needs no reconsideration.
5. The practice of advocates making applications for the grant of senior designation can continue as the act of making an application can be treated as consent of the advocate for designation. Additionally, the Full Court may confer designation dehors the application in a deserving case.
6. In the scheme of S.16(2) of the Advocates Act, there is no scope for individual judges of this Court or the High Court to recommend a candidate for designation.
7. At least one exercise of designation must be exercised every calendar year.
8. The process already initiated on the basis of the decisions in Indira Jaising I and Indira Jaising II shall continue to be governed by the said decisions. However, new processes shall not be initiated and new applications shall not be considered unless there is a proper regime of rules framed by the High Courts.
Even the Supreme Court will have to amend the rules in the light of this decision. Every effort shall be made to improve the system by periodically reviewing the same in the light of this judgment by the Supreme Court and the respective High Courts."
The bench also recorded its appreciation for Senior Advocate Indira Jaising for pursuing the measures to reform the senior designation system.
On March 20, 2025, the three-judge bench of Justices Abhay Oka, Ujjal Bhuyan, and SVN Bhatti reserved its judgment on the issue of reconsideration of the Indira Jaising judgments of 2017 and 2023, which lay down the guidelines for the designation of Senior Advocates.
Background
The hearings on this issue followed a reference made by a two-judge bench of Justices Abhay Oka and Augustine George Masih on February 20, 2025, which expressed concerns about various aspects of the current system.
The issue originally arose in the context of a case concerning false statements and suppression of facts by a Senior Advocate in multiple remission pleas. The Court expressed concern about growing instances of misrepresentations in such cases and framed guidelines for Advocates-on-Record (AoRs) as well.
Regarding senior advocate designation, the issues raised by the two-judge bench included whether an advocate can seek designation under Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, the weightage given to brief interviews for assessing personality and suitability, the scope for assessing integrity and professional misconduct, and the mechanical allocation of points based on years of practice without accounting for active involvement.
The Court also observed that the interview process could undermine the dignity of advocates and transform the designation process into a selection process. It further noted that the system could disadvantage trial court practitioners who may not have reported judgments.
On February 25, 2025, the bench of Justices Abhay Oka, Ujjal Bhuyan, and SVN Bhatti issued notice to all High Courts and stakeholders. It also allowed Indira Jaising to raise her objection that any reconsideration of the two judgments must be done by a larger bench.
Thereafter, during the hearings, the bench questioned the inclusion of bar members, such as the Attorney General for India and Advocates General, in the Permanent Committee that assigns marks for Senior Advocate designation. Justice Oka asked whether members of the Bar should be part of the decision-making machinery of the Full Court. He distinguished between informal consultations with bar members and formally including them in a marking system.
Attorney General R. Venkataramani, a member of the Permanent Committee, said he supported the current system but with modifications, including removing the interview process. He acknowledged that the assessment task was exhaustive and added that the Permanent Committee's recommendation should generally be followed by the Full Court, though the latter retained the ultimate authority.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Supreme Court, proposed scrapping the current marking system and adopting a secret ballot voting by the Full Court. He opposed the inclusion of bar members in the Permanent Committee and any individual recommendations by judges. He also opposed evaluation based on subjective criteria like personality and suitability and suggested that High Courts should consider district court lawyers for designation.
Justice Oka questioned whether Permanent Committee members could realistically assess all the judgments and materials submitted by candidates. The Attorney General admitted that he became exhausted during the evaluation process and suggested the need for assistance.
The bench also discussed the use of a secret ballot. While the Attorney General argued that a fair evaluation by the Permanent Committee would render a secret ballot unnecessary, the Solicitor General supported the secret ballot to ensure transparency and independence in voting. High Courts of Delhi, Karnataka, and Punjab and Haryana supported the secret ballot, while SCAORA President Vipin Nair opposed it.
Nair said the current system only required minor tweaks, such as reducing marks for the interview and improving transparency by letting candidates access their preliminary marks before the interaction. He also suggested augmenting the Permanent Committee. The SCAORA called for real-time assessment of AoR performance and sought representation in the Permanent Committee.
Senior Advocate Indira Jaising opposed the secret ballot and defended the interview process. She called for transparency, live-streaming of Full Court discussions, and consideration of caste, gender, and minority representation. She also criticised lobbying and judicial recommendations in the selection process.
The Supreme Court reserved its verdict after considering the submissions of the Attorney General, Solicitor General, Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, SCAORA President, and other stakeholders.
Case no. – Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 4299/2024
Case Title – Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt.) of NCT of Delhi & Anr.