Today, On 13th May, The Supreme Court has issued new guidelines for Senior Advocate designations, removing the marking system. It affirmed that the minimum qualification of 10 years of practice for designation needs no reconsideration.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court issued new guidelines on Tuesday for granting Senior Advocate status to lawyers.
Justices Abhay S. Oka, Ujjal Bhuyan, and SVN Bhatti mandated that all High Courts revise their existing rules to align with this judgment within four months.
The Court stated it has eliminated the current “marking system.” It emphasized that the decision to bestow the designation will be made by the Full Court of the High Courts or the Supreme Court.
Also Read: Supreme Court To Hear Plea Next Week Challenging 70 Senior Advocate Designations
The Court ordered,
“The decision to confer designation shall be of the Full Court of the High Courts or this Court. The applications of all candidates found to be eligible by the Permanent Secretariat, along with relevant documents submitted by the applicants, shall be placed before the Full Court, and the endeavour can be always made to arrive at consensus,”
Applications from all candidates deemed eligible by the Permanent Secretariat, along with their relevant documents, will be presented to the Full Court, which should strive for a consensus.
However, if consensus cannot be reached, the decision-making process must involve a democratic voting method.
The Court noted,
“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 the facts and served as a given case.”
Additionally, the Court confirmed that the minimum requirement of 10 years of practice does not need reconsideration. Advocates may continue to submit applications for designation, which will be viewed as their consent for the title.
Nevertheless, the Full Court has the discretion to grant the designation without an application.
The Court clarified that individual judges cannot recommend candidates for designation. This ruling follows a case where a convict sought remission in a kidnapping matter, prompting the Court to address broader issues related to false pleadings.
The conduct of Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra was also scrutinized, leading to a reevaluation of the senior designation process.
The procedure for conferring senior designations was established following the Supreme Court’s 2017 ruling in the Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court case, which aimed for increased transparency and objectivity in the designation process. Several High Courts had previously suggested modifications to this ruling.
The Supreme Court indicated that the designation exercise should occur annually. Existing designation processes will proceed based on the principles set in the Indira Jaising case.
However, no new designation processes can begin until High Courts create rules consistent with the latest guidelines.
The Court concluded by stating,
“It is obvious that even this court will have to undertake the exercise of amending the rules and guidelines in the light of this decision,”
Also emphasized the importance of periodically reviewing and enhancing the designation system.
Case Title: Jitender @ Kalla v. State of NCT of Delhi