The Supreme Court of India is reassessing the 2017 Senior Advocate designation system amid lobbying concerns. Senior Advocate Indira Jaising and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta criticized the current process, particularly the interview method that lacks clarity. Proposals for a secret ballot system and a focus on competence rather than prestige were also discussed to improve fairness and transparency.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India on Friday revisited the effectiveness of the revised Senior Advocate designation system, introduced in 2017, amid concerns that it has failed to curb lobbying practices. Senior Advocate Indira Jaising and Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta—who have often clashed on this issue—found common ground in their criticism of the current system.
A Bench of Justices AS Oka and Augustine George Masih heard arguments from various stakeholders, including Senior Advocate Dr. S. Muralidhar, who was appointed as amicus curiae to assist in reforming the process.
Indira Jaising, who had filed the 2015 petition that led to the 2017 Supreme Court judgment revamping the system, expressed disappointment that lawyers still lobby for the senior gown.
“I don’t understand why, either in 2017, 2023, or even now, the Supreme Court Bar Association has not come up with their suggestions on this. The High Court should give feedback on the problems they have experienced. A lot of lobbying is taking place even under this system. This petition (which led to the 2017 ruling) was filed to end the system of lobbying,”
she said.
SG Tushar Mehta agreed, acknowledging that despite the reforms, lobbying remains rampant.
“Only she could have said this, but it is a fact. It is unfortunate, but it is a fact. And it is really embarrassing. Your Lordships will have to stop this,”
Mehta remarked.
One of the key issues raised was the interview process, which is part of the point-based Senior Advocate designation system. Under this system, candidates for Senior Advocate status are awarded 25 marks for an interview, but there are no clear guidelines on how the interview is conducted.
Justice Oka questioned the fairness of the interview process, saying:
“Let’s take your example. When you were designated this system was not there. Now will it be fair to say that the person of your standing, you have done so much of pro bono work, you should be subjected to interview? Is it consistent with the dignity of your standing that five gentlemen they ask questions? 25 marks are assigned for this interaction, say for 5 minutes, 10 minutes …There are no guidelines on how interaction is conducted.”
SG Tushar Mehta supported removing the interview process, stating:
ALSO READ: Bombay High Court Mandates Video Recording for SC/ST Act Proceedings
“It is a test of personality. In 5 minutes or 15 minutes, what can (a candidate) convince? Interview needs to be done away with.”
However, Indira Jaising disagreed with his reasoning, stating that the problem was not about dignity, but the potential for manipulation.
“My reasons are different from yours (referring to SG Mehta). It’s not about dignity, but rather having such a high weightage on an interview leaves scope for manipulation. I am sorry to be blunt,”
she asserted.
Jaising further raised concerns over judges recommending lawyers for Senior Advocate status, arguing that it allows undue influence and unfair advantage to certain lawyers.
“I’m flagging an issue that no judge, no sitting judge should give a recommendation to anybody. In the system earlier, there was unlimited lobbying. There are some people who have access to judges. I am one of those people who believe that there should be no access to judges in the matter of designation at all,”
she emphasized.
The Supreme Court bench acknowledged the need to ensure that all lawyers receive a fair opportunity while preventing undeserving candidates from being designated.
Jaising urged the Court to focus on competence rather than treating the designation as an “honor.”
“If you begin at the dignity end and then you are saying that it’s an honor, it is not an honor. You are being designated for your competence. So please find a way of judging competence,”
she said.
She also pointed out that the real beneficiaries of competent legal representation are clients, not lawyers themselves.
“The client is the ultimate beneficiary of your efforts and my efforts, and they deserve the best. Let’s not talk about our (lawyers’) dignity, let’s talk about the dignity of the person for whom we are working. They deserve the best. They deserve competent people,”
she stated.
Jaising also highlighted the importance of diversity in the selection process, pointing out that clients from marginalized communities may feel more comfortable working with lawyers from similar backgrounds.
“Suppose there is a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe lawyer designated, or somebody else from a minority community. The client may have a comfort level communicating with them. Nothing to do with personal benefit—ultimately, the beneficiary is the litigant,”
she explained.
Amicus Curiae Dr. S. Muralidhar proposed amending Supreme Court rules to clearly define lawyers’ responsibilities in case filings to ensure accuracy and accountability.
He also stated that there is broad support among stakeholders to eliminate interviews from the designation process.
“It is not possible for Your Lordships to garner any meaningful assessment on personality or other traits just with that few minutes of interaction … I am getting the feedback that the secret ballot system must be introduced, not as an exception, but as the rule,”
ALSO READ: Allahabad High Court Clarifies SC/ST Act’s Applicability in Private Spaces
Muralidhar informed the Court.
SG Mehta also supported the secret ballot system, arguing:
“If Your Lordships do not know me (a candidate), then within 5 minutes or 15 minutes, what can I convince the court? The very fact that five of the people representative of the bar, Attorney General, and the three honorable judges have to interview the person by itself means that he doesn’t deserve to be designated. Therefore, the interview needs to be done away with. And with a view to ensure that the views of each judge are counted and each judge is able to make his decision, secret ballot must be a must.”
After hearing extensive arguments, the Supreme Court reserved the matter for orders.
This ongoing debate raises important questions about transparency, fairness, and meritocracy in the Senior Advocate designation system. The final decision of the Court could bring major reforms in how lawyers are recognized for their legal acumen and contribution to the judiciary.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES