New Delhi: The Supreme Court is set to hear a writ petition filed by Advocate Satish Chaudhary challenging the non-inclusion of his name in the list of advocates designated as Senior Advocates by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The petitioner has raised concerns regarding transparency, objectivity, and fairness in the process of senior designation of advocates by the High Court.
The matter was taken up on April 13, 2026, before a Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma. The Bench has listed the matter for next week. Notice is yet to be issued on the writ petition.
It is the petitioner’s case that, despite securing higher marks, his name was not placed before the Full Court for consideration, while certain advocates who secured lower marks were ultimately designated as Senior Advocates. It is further contended that due consideration was not given to the fact that the petitioner belongs to a marginalised community.
Appearing for the petitioner, Advocates Sunieta Ojha and Fozia Rahman, assisted by Advocates Pragti Bhatia and Vasudha Priyansha, placed reliance on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the 2017 and 2023 Indira Jaising judgments on senior advocate designation.
These judgments established 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. The Committee was tasked with awarding points to each applicant based on criteria such as: 20 points for years of practice, 50 points for reported judgments, 5 points for publications, and 25 points for the interview—collectively known as the point-based assessment system.
This system was scrapped by the Supreme Court last year after revisiting the 2017 and 2023 judgments. The present challenge raises questions regarding the application of the current framework for senior advocate designation and whether the process adopted by the Punjab and Haryana High Court adheres to the principles of transparency, objectivity, and fairness mandated by the Supreme Court.
The petition challenges the decision-making process that resulted in advocates with lower marks being designated as Senior Advocates, while the petitioner—despite allegedly securing higher marks—was not placed before the Full Court for consideration. The petitioner has also emphasised that he belongs to a marginalised community, suggesting that this factor was not duly considered.
The Supreme Court’s decision to list the matter for next week indicates that the Court will examine the allegations of procedural irregularities and lack of transparency in the senior designation process adopted by the High Court. The case also raises broader questions about the framework governing senior advocate designation across High Courts following the Supreme Court’s decision to scrap the point-based assessment system.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Satish Chaudhary vs. High Court of Punjab and Haryana
- Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 371/2026, Diary No. 17846/2026
- Court: Supreme Court of India
- Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
- Date of Hearing: April 13, 2026 (Matter listed for further hearing)
- Counsel for Petitioner: Advocates Sunieta Ojha and Ms. Fozia Rahman, assisted by Advocates Ms. Pragti Bhatia and Vasudha Priyansha
