Today, On 20th February, The Supreme Court raised concerns about the process of designating Senior Advocates and referred the matter to the Chief Justice of India (CJI). The Court emphasized that integrity and fairness are essential qualities for designation. Advocates lacking these attributes should not be granted the Senior Advocate status. The issue highlights the need for a more transparent and merit-based selection process.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court highlighted several gaps in the current process for designating lawyers as Senior Advocates.
A bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan referred the issue to Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna to determine if a larger bench should be convened to address these concerns.
The Court stated,
“We mean no disrespect towards the two binding decisions in the Indira Jaising case; we are merely recording our concerns to assist the Chief Justice in deciding if these doubts warrant consideration by a larger bench,”
The bench remarked that no advocate can request designation; it is a privilege granted by the Supreme Court or High Court with the lawyer’s consent. They expressed skepticism about whether a brief interview is adequate for assessing a candidate’s personality or suitability, noting that 25 out of 100 points are allocated for interviews.
The Court observed,
“The Permanent Committee’s duty is to make an overall assessment of the advocate based on a point-based formula. No alternative methods for this assessment have been provided,”
Additionally, the Court maintained that an advocate lacking integrity or fairness should not receive designation, explaining that such individuals cannot be held in high regard at the bar. It raised concerns about how the cases of such advocates can be evaluated by the Permanent Committee.
The Court noted,
“Even if members of the Permanent Committee are aware that the applicant-advocate lacks integrity or fairness, or faces pending complaints for professional misconduct, there is no mechanism to reduce points in their evaluation.”
This is because the 25 marks for interviews are based solely on performance during that interview and not on the lawyer’s overall reputation or courtroom performance.
The Court questioned whether it is appropriate for the Chief Justice and senior judges to spend extensive time reviewing submissions made by lawyers.
They stated,
“It is common for applicants to submit numerous judgments and articles; if members of the Permanent Committee must review all these to assign marks, it raises the question of whether senior judges should dedicate hours to one candidate,”
In closing, the Court emphasized that the assessment methods need to be reviewed by the full court, posing the question of whether the current point-based assessment can reliably evaluate an advocate when it is not free from flaws.
The Court also referred the matter concerning Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra to the Chief Justice. Malhotra has faced scrutiny for allegedly making false statements in multiple cases.
Justice Oka remarked,
“Regarding the designation of Rishi Malhotra, we leave it to the Hon’ble CJI to decide,”
Previously, the Court had issued a notice to Malhotra after an Advocate-on-Record (AoR) indicated that he had signed off on an appeal at Malhotra’s urging, which later omitted certain crucial facts.
Also Read: Delhi High Court Revises Senior Advocate Designation Rules
In this context, the Court defined the responsibilities of Advocates-on-Record, stating,
“An AoR is accountable to this Court due to their unique position under the Supreme Court Rules of 2013. Therefore, when incorrect facts are presented or material facts are suppressed, the AoR cannot shift the blame entirely onto the client or instructing advocates; it is their duty to be cautious and careful.”
The Supreme Court raised concerns over the process of designating Senior Advocates, questioning the adequacy of a brief interview in assessing a lawyer’s suitability. A bench led by Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan referred the matter to Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna to determine if a larger bench should review these issues.
The Court pointed out the lack of a mechanism to assess an advocate’s integrity or past misconduct in the evaluation process. Additionally, it left the decision on Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra’s designation to the Chief Justice, amid allegations of false statements in multiple cases.
Case Title : Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt.) of NCT of Delhi & Anr.