The Supreme Court has raised serious concerns over the Allahabad High Court’s 2019 Senior Advocate appointments. It noted a departure from the Indira Jaising guidelines and sought the High Court’s response.
The Supreme Court of India on Friday issued a notice to the Allahabad High Court in a case that questions how Senior Advocate titles were given in 2019.
The matter was taken up by a Bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan. They expressed serious concern that the Allahabad High Court may not have followed the proper rules laid down earlier by the Supreme Court in the well-known Indira Jaising case.
ALSO READ: Lawyer v. Lawyer: New Delhi Lok Sabha Seat Showdown
In the court hearing, Justice Oka pointed out the deviation from the rules and said,
“The High Court in its own wisdom has modified Indira Jaising.”
This means the High Court made its own changes to the process instead of sticking to the national-level guidelines.
The petition in this case was filed by Advocate Vishnu Bihari Tiwari. He challenged a decision made in September 2024 by the Allahabad High Court, which had earlier upheld the list of Senior Advocates designated in 2019. Tiwari said the method used by the High Court was not fair or transparent.
However, the Allahabad High Court had rejected Tiwari’s challenge. It said that no new Senior Advocates had been appointed since 2019.
The court also said that since Tiwari’s name had not made it to the shortlist due to the changed cut-off mark, he did not have the legal standing to question the entire process.
The main issue in this case is that the permanent committee of the Allahabad High Court had changed the scoring system.
Instead of using the full 100-point scale mentioned in the Indira Jaising case, they decided to consider only those candidates who scored 45 out of 75 marks.
Out of 78 names that were sent to the full court, 75 lawyers were granted the title of Senior Advocate.
The Allahabad High Court had earlier defended its decision. It said that, under the Indira Jaising guidelines of 2017, High Courts were allowed to create their own shortlisting rules.
It also said that interviews were optional, not compulsory. According to the High Court, only those candidates who were shortlisted but still not chosen could raise objections—and the petitioner, Tiwari, was not in that category.
Still, the Supreme Court Bench was not satisfied and decided to examine the matter further.
The court clearly said that it was worried about the change in the maximum marks and the process used. So, it asked the Allahabad High Court to give its official reply.
The Bench also remembered a similar situation from the Delhi High Court. In that case, problems were raised regarding the Senior Advocate titles given in November 2024.
The same Bench had then asked the Delhi High Court to look again at the cases of candidates who had been rejected or whose selection was postponed.
At the same time, the Bench led by Justice Oka has already reserved its final judgment in another important case where the entire Indira Jaising guidelines for designating Senior Advocates have been challenged.
ALSO READ: ‘Lawyers Strikes Unacceptable’: Supreme Court Enforces ‘zero tolerance’ Policy
The case continues to be a significant moment in how transparency and fairness in legal appointments are judged.
As the Supreme Court takes a closer look at this issue, many in the legal community are watching closely to see whether changes will be made to ensure uniformity across all High Courts.
Click Here to Read More Reports On Lawyers
