The Supreme Court Bar Association approached CJI Surya Kant, requesting a re-evaluation of the waiting periods in the 2026 Guidelines for Designation of Senior Advocates. The move seeks to ensure fairer and timely appointments under the new rules.
The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) approached Chief Justice of India, Justice Surya Kant, requesting a re-evaluation of the waiting periods outlined in the Guidelines for Designation of Senior Advocates, 2026, related to the case of Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Ors.
In a representation dated February 12, the SCBA expressed concerns regarding Paragraphs 21 and 22 of the 2026 Guidelines, which impose a two-year waiting period for Advocates-on-Record and for advocates whose applications were not favorably assessed, along with a one-year waiting period for those whose cases were deferred by the Full Court before they can reapply.
The Association highlighted that the Supreme Court has previously eased similar restrictions to avoid unjust disadvantages for advocates whose applications were not rejected based on merit or due to disqualifications.
Also Read: SCBA Election Reforms || Justice L Nageswara Rao Committee Invites Lawyers’ Inputs
Under Paragraph 21, cases not positively reviewed by the Full Court may only be reconsidered after a two-year waiting period from the decision date.
Paragraph 22 prevents the reassessment of deferred cases for one year from the Full Court’s ruling.
However, the SCBA indicated that it has received numerous requests from Bar members, particularly those considered in the last designation cycle, pointing out that the strict waiting periods unnecessarily hinder timely reconsideration, especially in situations where deferment or non-consideration was procedural.
Significantly, the SCBA referenced a notice from March 14, 2024, issued by the Committee for Designation of Senior Advocates under the previous 2023 Guidelines, which addressed similar issues.
That notice allowed advocates whose cases were deferred to reapply without the one-year wait and shortened the waiting time for those not favorably considered from two years to one year.
The Association argued that a similar easing under the 2026 Guidelines would align with prior practices and promote fairness within the institution.
The SCBA has urged the Chief Justice of India to consider two specific proposals:
- To permit Advocates-on-Record and those whose applications were not favorably assessed to apply again after one year instead of the two years currently required under Paragraph 21.
- To allow advocates whose cases were deferred by the Full Court to reapply without being subject to the one-year limitation under Paragraph 22.
According to the SCBA, such adjustments would ensure that deserving advocates are not disadvantaged by procedural timelines when there are no negative findings regarding their qualifications or capabilities. The representation emphasizes that the designation of Senior Advocates is not solely an individual accolade but a process that materially affects the standard of advocacy in constitutional courts.
The SCBA cautioned that excessive procedural rigidity could undermine trust in the system if qualified candidates are forced to await long periods without justifiable reasons.
The Association commended the Supreme Court for its ongoing commitment to enhancing the designation framework and noted that a measured relaxation would further improve transparency and trust in the process.
It stated,
“The Supreme Court Bar Association remains grateful for the continued efforts of the Hon’ble Court in strengthening institutional processes and recognising excellence at the Bar,”
Read Attachment