+91 964 334 1948
13 May 2025, 04:01 PM
The Supreme Court held that the 100-point based assessment mechanism for the designation of Senior Advocates, instituted Indira Jaising judgments of 2017 and 2023 (Indira Jaising-1 and 2) had failed to achieve its intended objectives over the past seven and a half years.
A bench Justice Abhay Oka, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, and Justice SVN Bhatti observed –
The Court observed that its directions in the two Indira Jaising judgments were never intended to be final, as paragraph 74 of Indira Jaising-1 and paragraph 51 of Indira Jaising-2 provide for suitable modifications based on experience cited.
The Court held that paragraph 73.7 of Indira Jaising-1, which had introduced the point system, will not be implemented.
The objective of the point-based system introduced in Indira Jaising-1 was to bring about uniformity, transparency, and objectivity in the designation of Senior Advocates across the Supreme Court and High Courts. It was meant to ensure that only the most meritorious and deserving advocates were designated and to curb lobbying and canvassing.
The Court highlighted various deficiencies of the point-based system –
Role of Permanent Committee
The Indira Jaising-1 judgment provided for the formation of Permanent Committees at the Supreme Court and High Courts, comprising the Chief Justice, the two senior-most judges, the Attorney General (or Advocate General in states), and a senior member of the Bar nominated by the other four.
These Committees were responsible for interviewing applicants and assigning scores out of 100 across several criteria before presenting the assessments to the Full Court for final decision-making. Although technically non-binding, these assessments effective act as recommendations, the Court observed.
“Though the scheme of Indira Jaising 1 and 2 does not confer a power on the Permanent Committee to recommend names, in practical terms, the exercise done by the Permanent Committee of assigning points out of 100 is treated as a recommendation of certain applicants.”
Bar Members Participating in Scoring
A major concern raised by the Court was the involvement of Bar members in the actual decision-making process. The Court questioned the statutory validity of conferring point-assignment powers to Bar members, referring to Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, which gives the power to designate solely to the Courts.
“In any event, the involvement of members of the Bar in the actual decision-making process by the Full Court in terms of Sub-section (2) of Section 16 cannot be supported by law”, the Court held.
The Court also noted potential impropriety and discomfort experienced by members of the Bar while assessing their peers, particularly during interviews.
Concerns with Duration of Practice Scoring
The point system awarded up to 20 points based purely on years of practice—20 points for over 20 years of practice, and 10 or more for 10 to 20 years. The Court criticized this metric, stating that mere longevity in the profession does not equate to merit or standing. The Court observed that such scoring could unjustly benefit advocates with long but unremarkable careers.
“There can be many members of the Bar who have a long presence in the profession. There are many members of the Bar who continue to practice for a long time, though their appearances are minimal. Only the number of years spent in practice cannot be a major criterion for designation by any stretch of imagination.”
Limitations of Interview Process
The Court expressed doubts about the effectiveness of short interviews—accounting for 25 out of 100 points—as a fair and accurate method of assessing an applicant's personality and suitability. It observed that such interactions often lasted only a few minutes, making it difficult to gauge a candidate's qualifications, and could reward applicants who were simply better at interviews, even if their general reputation is not up to the mark.
“Interaction or interview for a few minutes by any standard is not sufficient to assess the personality and suitability of the concerned Advocate. Such brief interactions can at best give an outer view of the applicant”, the Court noted.
The Court further added, “It is not out of place to observe that subjecting an Advocate having standing at the Bar to interview by three senior-most Judges and two senior members of the Bar violates the dignity of the noble profession.”
Assessing Judgments, Submissions, and Written Work
Applicants were required to submit large volumes of reported and unreported judgments and written submissions, which accounted for 50 points. The Court noted the impracticality of attributing specific arguments or quality of submissions to individual advocates, especially since submissions are often team efforts. It also emphasized the significant time burden this placed on judges and committee members, who already have extensive judicial and administrative responsibilities.
The Court rejected the suggestion to outsource this task to court staff or research bodies like the Centre for Research and Planning (CRP) observing that such an important responsibility could not be delegated.
Unfair to Assign Specific Points for Publications
While recognizing the value of legal publications in assessing an advocate's standing, the Court found it unreasonable to assign specific points (out of 5) to publications.
“If an Advocate has authored articles or a thesis on complex legal issues or has published books on legal subjects to his credit, depending upon the quality of writing, it adds to the standing of the Advocate. However, it will be unjust to give weightage to such work done by the Advocate by assigning points out of 5. Writing articles or books is not an essential criterion for designation. It is an additional consideration”, the court opined.
Absence of Criteria for Integrity and Character
The Court noted that the point system lacked a mechanism to evaluate an applicant's character, honesty, and integrity—qualities that are fundamental to the designation of a Senior Advocate. The Court found this omission to be a critical shortcoming of the framework.
“No specific points have been assigned for the character, honesty and integrity. The point-based assessment, as can be seen from the earlier discussion, can hardly be objective, and it tends to be highly subjective”, the Court concluded.
Other reports about the judgment can be read here
Case no. – Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 4299/2024
Case Title – Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt.) of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 555