NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has ordered there should be neither be points based assessment nor interview of lawyers to designate them as senior advocates.
A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka, Ujjal Bhuyan and S V N Bhatti ordered that the directions contained in paragraph 73.7 of previous judgment known as Indira Jaising-1 (2017) as amended by Indira Jaising-2 (2023) would not be implemented.
In the earlier judgment, it was held that the permanent committee would examine each case in the light of the data provided by its secretariat; interview the advocate concerned; and make its overall assessment on the basis of a point-based me format for the purpose.
Considering criteria afresh, the court said, 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.
The court emphasised the designation of an advocate as a senior advocate is different from making an appointment to the post.
"The experience of the last seven and a half years shows that it may not be rationally or objectively possible to assess calibre, standing at the Bar, and the experience in law of the advocates who apply for designation on the basis of a point based format. That has not achieved the desired objective," the bench said.
The court also pointed out in previous judgment, another important aspect as no specific points have been assigned for the character, honesty and integrity.
"The point-based assessment can hardly be objective, and it tends to be highly subjective," the bench said.
The three-judge bench examined the matter after a two-judge bench in Jitender alias Kalla Vs State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Ors, had on February 20, 2025 expressed concerns over the process of designation of senior advocates.
In its 89-page judgment, the apex court said the decision to confer designation would be of the full court of the High Courts or this court; and the applications of all candidates found to be eligible by the permanent secretariat along with relevant documents submitted by the applicants would be placed before the full house.
"An endeavour can always be made to arrive at consensus. However, if a consensus on designation of advocates is not 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 Courts to take a call considering facts and circumstances of the given case," the bench said.
The court also said the minimum qualification of 10 years of practice as fixed by Indira Jaising-1 needs no reconsideration.
However, the practice of advocates making applications for grant of designation can continue as this can be treated as consent for designation. Additionally, the Full Court may consider and confer designation dehors an application in a deserving case, it added.
The bench also pointed out that in the scheme of Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, which deals with the senior advocate designations, there was no scope for individual judges of this court or High Courts to recommend candidate for designation. The court also mandated at least one exercise of designation should be undertaken every calendar year.
The bench also clarified the processes already initiated on the basis of decisions of this court in the case of Indira Jaising-1 and Indira Jaising-2 would continue to be governed by the said decisions. However, new process would not be initiated and new applications would not be considered unless there is a proper regime of Rules framed by the High Courts.
The court asked all the High Courts to frame rules in terms of what has been held in this decision within a period of four months by amending or substituting the existing rules.
"It is obvious that even this court will have to undertake the exercise of amending the Rules/Guidelines in the light of this decision; and every endeavour shall be made to improve the regime/system of designation by periodically reviewing the same by this court and the respective High Courts," the bench said.
