On January 20th, a Supreme Court hearing featured a contentious debate between Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Senior Advocate Indira Jaising over the Senior Advocate designation process. Mehta advocated for reinstating secret ballot voting, arguing current pressures skew judge opinions, while Jaising contested that this challenged a 2017 ruling, emphasizing the importance of following legal procedures for any changes proposed.
New Delhi: On Monday (Jan 20th), the Supreme Court witnessed a heated exchange between Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Senior Advocate Indira Jaising during a hearing on the procedure for designating Senior Advocates. The discussion unfolded before a Bench of Justices AS Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, which was deliberating on issues related to the Advocate-on-Record (AoR) system, senior designations, and a convict’s plea for remission.
The contention arose when SG Mehta sought modifications to the current procedure for conferring Senior Advocate designations, a system established by a landmark 2017 judgment based on a petition by Jaising herself. Mehta argued for reinstating secret ballot voting by the full court, which had been largely abandoned after the 2017 ruling.
“The full court must have a duty to vote by secret ballot,”
Also Read: Supreme Court Petition Challenges Delhi High Court’s Senior Advocate Designation Process
Mehta emphasized, suggesting that informal pressures in the legal fraternity sometimes prevent judges from expressing their true opinions.
Jaising was quick to object, asserting that Mehta’s request amounted to scrapping the entire judgment.
“This is something I will contest till my last breath. The current system is objective. If Mr. Mehta thinks otherwise, he must explain what’s not working,”
she argued, adding that any challenge must follow proper legal procedure.
“If Mr. Mehta wants changes, let him file an application in writing. Since when does this court entertain oral applications?”
Jaising firmly questioned.
Mehta clarified that he was appearing on behalf of the Union government and insisted his arguments were based on legitimate concerns. However, Jaising maintained her stance:
“What I don’t understand is how the Solicitor General can walk into the court and make demands without a written application. Is there no procedure established by law in this courtroom?”
The Bench appeared to agree with Jaising, with Justice Oka highlighting the principle established in the 2017 judgment: “Normally, there shouldn’t be a secret ballot.” The Court assured Jaising that it was mindful of its limitations as a two-judge Bench, indicating that, at most, it could record concerns and refer the matter to the Chief Justice for consideration by a larger Bench.
Also Read: ‘Punjab Panchayat Polls Case’: Supreme Court Seeks State’s & Election Commission Response
The Bench remarked:
“We are exercising our power to express our concerns and, if necessary, refer them to the Chief Justice. Take it as our concern. We will ignore what the Solicitor General has said.”
Despite the Court’s assurances, Jaising criticized the Solicitor General’s approach, stating: “Let him file a review application in writing.” Mehta defended himself, asserting, “I am not just a stranger walking into this court,” to which Jaising retorted, “You are a stranger walking in.”
The courtroom exchange highlights ongoing debates about the transparency and objectivity of the senior designation process. While Mehta pushed for secret ballots to reflect judges’ true opinions, Jaising defended the current system as a fair and objective mechanism, urging adherence to legal procedures for any proposed changes.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
