Senior Designation: Supreme Court To Commence Hearing Of Plea Seeking Reforms

Senior Designation: Supreme Court To Commence Hearing Of Plea Seeking Reforms

Posted on: Jul 15, 2023

Article by: Chhavi Pathak

The coveted title of Senior Advocate in the Indian legal system is a shining symbol of excellence and expertise, signifying the pinnacle of proficiency in the legal profession. Recent discussions surrounding the process of acquiring such a prestigious designation have been a subject of great interest and concern. Section 16[1] of the Advocates Act unequivocally authorises the conferral of this recognition. Prior to 2017, judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts had sole discretion over whom to grant the senior gown, and the criteria for conferring this honour remained largely opaque.

However, this existing practice was challenged by a petition brought forth in 2015[2] by the esteemed Senior Advocate and former Additional Solicitor General, Indira Jaising. It was contended that the legal system in force at the time was fostering a monopolistic environment where a select few advocates were designated as senior advocates, leading to significant challenges in accessing justice. Emphasising the importance of a fair and merit-based approach, she urged for an equitable system that would provide equal opportunities to all.

In a 2017 judgement[3] of the aforementioned petition, authored by J. Gogoi, the constitutionality of Section 16 of the Advocates Act [4]was upheld, allowing for the designation of Senior Advocates based on merit, ability, contribution, and standing in the legal profession. The judgement recognized the value of this recognition in enhancing the legal system. Concerns over possible negative consequences were dismissed, and challenges based on alleged constitutional violations were deemed untenable.

The judgement established dynamic guidelines for designating Senior Advocates, which prioritise ten-year practice at the bar, strict scrutiny of credentials, and removed the minimum income requirement. Although relevant statutes suggest subjective exercise of power, merit evaluation is not limited to academic qualifications or seniority but takes into account a range of factors. Transparency and reasonableness are critical in justifying the designation under Section 16. The guidelines also established a Permanent Committee and Secretariat. The names shortlisted by the permanent panel would be placed before the Full Court, which will take the final decision. All cases that have not been favourably considered by the Full Court may be reviewed or reconsidered after two years. The Bar's participation in the process is desirable for objective criteria and to meet the constitutional test for transparency.

Following the 2017 judgement, the Supreme Court developed objective guidelines for senior advocate designation in 2018, and the first set of designations was completed in 2019. However, the issuance of the notice inviting applications for senior advocate designation was significantly delayed, only being issued in February 2022 after a four-year gap. Unfortunately, the process has yet to be concluded, resulting in anxiety among members of the legal community.

In response, the Supreme Court Advocate-on-Record Association has filed an application urging the Supreme Court to direct the Committee for Designation of Senior Advocates to expedite the process and complete the senior advocate designation for applications received in February 2022. Consequently, a petition has been filed in the Supreme Court[5] to re-examine the 2017 verdict. The verdict itself enabled further examination of the guidelines by making them non- exhaustive and granting the liberty to examine the guidelines further in the course of time.

[1] Advocates Act, 1961, § 16, No. 25, Acts of Parliament, 1961 (India) Available at http://www.scconline.com/DocumentLink/kl407A16  (Accessed 19 February 2023)

[2] Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India, (2017) 9 SCC 766 Available at http://www.scconline.com/DocumentLink/1N1zKiJy   (Accessed 19 February 2023)

[3] Ibid

[4]  Advocates Act, 1961, § 16, No. 25, Acts of Parliament, 1961 (India) Available at http://www.scconline.com/DocumentLink/kl407A16  (Accessed 19 February 2023)

[5] Amar Vivek Aggarwal And Ors. v. HC of P&H And Ors. WP(C) No. 687/2021