NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has said a "serious introspection" was required regarding the rules framed in connection with designating lawyers as senior advocates and favoured the Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna consider the issue for examination before a larger bench.
A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih raised several questions on criteria fixed for the purpose including inviting applications from advocates by the permanent committee going against the mandate of the Advocates Act.
Supreme Court Flags Concerns Over Senior Advocate Selection Process
The court expressed serious doubts and concerns with the senior designation system, which has been laid down as per the two judgments rendered by apex court's three-judge bench in the Indira Jaising case in 2017 and 2023.
The court said it is doubtful whether by interviewing a candidate for a few minutes, his personality or suitability can be really tested. 25 points out of 100 are assigned for interview/interaction, constituting 1/4th of the total points. Section 16 of the Advocates Act deals with the senior designation of lawyers.
CJI Urged to Reconsider Senior Advocate Designation Process
The question that needs serious consideration is whether the court should permit applications to be made for grant of designation, though the statute does not contemplate that, the court said.
"If the legislature intended to allow advocates to make applications for designation, sub-section (2) of Section 16 would not have provided for this court or high courts to take the consent of advocates before designation," the bench said.
The court said if an advocate, by virtue of his standing at the Bar, his ability or special knowledge, deserves designation as a senior advocate, the question which arises is, by making such an advocate appear for an interview, are we not compromising on the dignity of the advocate? Are we not converting the process of designation into a selection process?
However, the bench said it does not disrespect the two decisions of the top court, rather flagging its concerns. “We again reiterate that we mean no disrespect to the two binding decisions, and we are recording our concerns only to enable the Chief Justice of India, to decide whether the doubts expressed by us need consideration by an appropriate larger Bench," the court said.
The court said under the existing process, it was the duty of the permanent committee to make its overall assessment of the candidate based on a points-based formula.
"No other method of making an overall assessment has been provided. No one can dispute that an advocate who lacks integrity or does not possess a quality of fairness is disentitled to designation," the bench said.
The bench said the role of a designated senior advocate was of considerable importance as those who were designated senior advocates had a different status and "high standing" in the legal system.
"Therefore, it is imperative that only those advocates who deserve the designation in terms of subsection (2) of Section 16 should be conferred designation. If undeserving candidates are designated as senior advocates, it affects the prestige and dignity of the institution of the judiciary, as it is the privilege of the high courts and this court to grant such designation," the bench said.
The court's judgment also highlighted the role Advocates on Record in the Supreme Court, saying when a petition or appeal is not drafted by him or her, the one who files it, is entirely and wholly responsible to this court.
