The Supreme Court is reviewing the senior advocate designation process to assess whether the existing system ensures fairness, transparency, and equal opportunity.
NEW DELHI: On March 20, 2025, a Special Bench of the Supreme Court concluded hearings and reserved its judgment on a case concerning the designation process of senior advocates. The Court is deliberating on whether the current system—established through two landmark rulings, Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (2017) and Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (2023)—requires modifications to enhance fairness, transparency, and equal opportunity.
The primary issue before the Court is whether the
“points-based evaluation system and brief interviews are sufficient to gauge an advocate’s merit, professional standing, and contributions to the legal field”
Several concerns were raised, including the extent of judicial discretion in the selection process, the potential disadvantages faced by trial court practitioners, and whether the existing framework inadvertently creates barriers for certain categories of lawyers.
Background: How Are Senior Advocates Designated in India?
Under the Advocates Act, 1961, the Supreme Court and High Courts have the authority to designate senior advocates based on their professional ability, legal acumen, and standing at the Bar. Historically, different High Courts followed their own criteria, leading to inconsistencies and a lack of uniform standards.
2017: Indira Jaising’s Petition and the Introduction of Structured Reforms
In 2017, the Supreme Court responded to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Senior Advocate Indira Jaising by introducing a structured selection mechanism that sought to standardize and regulate the designation process. The newly established system included:
- A Permanent Committee: Comprising the Chief Justice of India (CJI), two senior-most judges, the Attorney General (AG) or Advocate General (AG) of the respective High Court, and a Bar representative.
- A Point-Based Evaluation System: Candidates were assessed based on reported judgments, academic publications, domain expertise, and pro bono contributions.
- Interviews: Applicants were required to appear before the full court for a brief interview.
2023: Modifications to the System
In 2023, the Supreme Court fine-tuned this framework by adjusting the weightage assigned to different evaluation criteria. Under the current system, candidates are graded on a 100-point scale:
- 20 Marks – Years of legal practice.
- 50 Marks – Judgments (reported and unreported), pro bono work, and domain expertise.
- 5 Marks – Legal publications or teaching experience.
- 25 Marks – Personal suitability and professional competence, assessed through an interview.
ALSO READ: Senior Advocate Indira Jaising Opposes Interviews for Senior Designation in Supreme Court
Why Has the Issue Gained Fresh Momentum?
The case resurfaced on February 20, 2025, when a Division Bench of Justices A.S. Oka and A.G. Masih delivered a verdict in Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt.) of NCT of Delhi (2025). The ruling highlighted concerns over the credibility and transparency of the senior advocate designation process, especially after a designated senior advocate was found to have misrepresented facts in a case.
Given the significance of the issue, the Division Bench referred the matter to Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, who subsequently constituted a Special Bench comprising Justices Oka, Ujjal Bhuyan, and S.V. Bhatti to examine the case.
On February 25, 2025, the Special Bench issued notices to all High Courts, seeking their views on potential amendments to the system. Four High Courts—Delhi, Karnataka, Patna, and Punjab & Haryana—submitted their recommendations. Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, whose PIL had originally led to the structured system, argued that any significant reconsideration should be undertaken by a larger bench of at least five judges for a more holistic review.
Key Issues Discussed in Court
1. Authority and Selection Process
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Supreme Court’s administrative side, opposed the inclusion of Bar representatives in the selection process. He argued that since the Attorney General (AG) and Advocate General (AG) were not part of the judiciary, they should not influence the designation process. Mehta suggested that:
- Only the full court should decide designations.
- The system where a few members allocate marks should be abolished.
- Only the court where the advocate practices should have the authority to designate them.
- The practice of individual judges recommending lawyers for designation should be eliminated.
Senior Advocate Indira Jaising countered that lobbying could undermine fairness in the selection process and suggested eliminating the distinctive gowns worn by senior advocates, arguing that no Bar Council rule mandates such differentiation.
2. Interviews and Merit-Based Evaluation
Mehta emphasized the need for an objective and quantifiable selection system. He argued that:
- Personality traits should not influence designation decisions, as they are subjective.
- Advocates should be assessed primarily on courtroom performance, similar to how cricketers are judged based on their on-field performance.
Attorney General R. Venkataramani, a member of the Permanent Committee, defended the exhaustive nature of evaluations but suggested eliminating interviews and adjusting the scoring criteria.
Senior Advocate Vipin Nair, President of the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA), proposed that:
- The interview’s weightage should be reduced.
- Candidates should be allowed to review their marks before the interview stage.
Jaising opposed the 25-mark allocation for interviews, arguing that
“such a high weightage was never part of her original petition and was disproportionately large. Instead, she proposed alternative metrics, such as:
- Mentorship contributions.
- Pro bono legal services.
- A system akin to the UPSC, where cutoff marks are declared after the results.”
3. Inclusivity and Representation
Mehta acknowledged that many competent advocates practice only in trial courts and suggested that High Courts should consider district court lawyers for senior designations.
Advocate Mathews Nedumpara criticized the existing system, arguing that it favored individuals with judicial or political lineage. He presented a chart illustrating the high number of designated seniors who were relatives of judges or politicians.
Jaising advocated for greater inclusivity and diversity, emphasizing that the selection process should not create artificial barriers for aspiring advocates.
4. Transparency vs Confidentiality
Both Jaising and Nedumpara raised constitutional concerns under Article 14, arguing that the process lacked transparency.
Justice Oka expressed concerns about
” marking lawyers based on their appearance in judgments, noting that it was often unclear whether an argument was presented by the lead counsel or an assisting junior”
Mehta supported the return of secret ballots, arguing that they would ensure judges could freely express their views. While some High Courts (Delhi, Karnataka, and Punjab & Haryana) backed the secret ballot system, SCAORA President Vipin Nair opposed it.
Jaising suggested that the full court should have discretion over whether to use a secret ballot, rather than mandating it through a judicial ruling.
Implications and the Road Ahead
The Supreme Court’s forthcoming judgment will determine whether the current system needs minor modifications or a complete overhaul. With 56 advocates designated as seniors in 2024 and 39 in 2023, the ruling will have a lasting impact on the future of senior designations in India.
READ JUDGEMENT HERE:
READ MORE REPORTS ON SENIOR ADVOCATES
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE