The current process for granting senior designations was put in place based on the Supreme Court’s 2017 judgment in a case filed by Indira Jaising.
NEW DELHI: Senior Advocate Indira Jaising told the Supreme Court on Thursday that she does not support the idea of conducting interviews to designate lawyers as Senior Advocates. She clarified that she never made such a suggestion in 2017, yet the Supreme Court included an interview process in its judgment and assigned 25 marks for it.
2017 Judgment
Jaising referred to the Supreme Court’s 2017 judgment in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court, which established the current process for conferring senior designations in the Supreme Court and various High Courts.
“I had not suggested an interview at all. Then when the judgment was delivered, I heard the learned judge reading it out and say 25 marks for interview. I never suggested 25 marks. It is quite large! I leave it to the court to decide what to do with 25 marks. If the person is not well in other areas, then he can be put up in the 25 marks area,” she stated on Thursday.
Jaising strongly supported the inclusion of diverse candidates in senior designations and emphasized the need to end discrimination against non-senior lawyers. She also defended the criteria that give weightage to publications and articles written by lawyers.
“When you are designating a senior, you are looking at their contribution to public life and not just public service. That is why I was keen that journal and articles are important since the person should have an intellectual bent of mind,” she said.
Jaising also addressed the issue of secret ballots for senior designations. She stressed that the designation of Senior Advocates is not an election and that whether a secret ballot should be used should be left to the full court rather than being mandated by a judicial decision.
“The process is not an election. The effort is to develop a consensus through discussion. If no consensus, then the process (exists) on how to decide. Whether you want secret ballot or not is something that should be left to full court and not a judicial decision. The judgment should not state that it will always be secret ballot. It should be left to full court in a given case,”
Jaising contended.
Supreme Court Reserves Verdict
A special bench of Justices AS Oka, Ujjal Bhuyan, and SVN Bhatti is hearing the issue of reconsidering the process for Senior Advocate designation. After hearing arguments from Jaising and other parties, the Supreme Court reserved its verdict on the matter.
Background of the 2017 Judgment
The current process for granting senior designations was put in place based on the Supreme Court’s 2017 judgment in a case filed by Indira Jaising. She had sought more transparency and objectivity in the process. However, there have been demands to modify certain aspects of the judgment, which the Supreme Court is now considering in the case of Jitender @ Kalla v. State of NCT of Delhi.
At least four High Courts have submitted suggestions after the Supreme Court asked for their views on the matter. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court’s administrative side, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, argued that the 2017 judgment should be re-examined.
However, the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) opposed this.
Its President, Vipin Nair, stated, “Judgments need fine-tuning with respect to certain aspects, but not a complete overhaul.”
During the hearing, advocate Mathews Nedumpara raised concerns about the impact of the senior designation system on litigants.
“A common man is denied justice due to the senior designation system. Court has opened a Pandora’s box. I have seen the agony of litigants. Lawyers should prosper. In this discussion, litigants are (being) avoided,” he said.
Nedumpara also emphasized that the issue touches on self-respect.
“This is about self-respect and I am 67 … This is a pain and agony shared by many and not just me. I will never apply for this. Never,” he said.
Jaising, appearing in person, reiterated her argument that there should be no distinction between senior and non-senior lawyers.
“This is a case dealing with classification of designated and non-designated seniors. I was on equality before law and equal protection of law. I argued that if there is no guided power, then the section should be declared unconstitutional,” she said.
Jaising also highlighted the importance of diversity in senior designations. She pointed out that some Indian lawyers like Harish Salve and Nakul Dewan had applied for senior designation in foreign courts and underwent a much more rigorous process.
“There are some lawyers of this court like Mr. Salve and Nakul Dewan who applied in foreign court for foreign designation and went through a much more rigorous process and got the senior designation process,” she said.
However, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta countered this by saying,
“We need to re-Indianise Indian jurisprudence and not go by what happens in foreign jurisdictions.”
Jaising maintained her stance, reiterating, “There has to be diversity at the level of senior designations.”
Earlier, The process of designating Senior Advocates is under review as four High Courts—Delhi, Karnataka, Punjab & Haryana, and Patna—have given their suggestions to the Supreme Court.
A three-judge bench of Justices Abhay S Oka, Ujjal Bhuyan, and SVN Bhatti had asked all High Courts and other stakeholders to submit their opinions on changing the current method of conferring senior designations.
On February 20, the Supreme Court remarked that “a serious introspection” was needed regarding the designation process and referred the matter to Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna to decide if a larger bench should examine the issue.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPADTES ON YOUTUBE
