On May 13, 2025, the Supreme Court of India made a significant change to the process of designating Senior Advocates by discarding the point-based assessment method used by the Permanent Committee. This decision came from a three-judge bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka, Ujjal Bhuyan, and SVN Bhatti, who directed all High Courts to amend their rules within four months, ensuring a more transparent and democratic process.
Read Also:- India and Pakistan Agree to Immediate Ceasefire After ‘Operation Sindoor’
Previously, the point-based assessment was used to evaluate candidates for Senior Advocate designation. Points were assigned based on various criteria, such as:
- 20 points: Years of practice.
- 50 points: Reported judgments.
- 5 points: Publications.
- 25 points: Interview performance.
However, the Supreme Court determined that this system was inadequate for fairly assessing candidates.
"We direct that the directions contained in paragraph 73.7 of Indira Jaising I as amended by Indira Jaising II shall not be implemented (the point-based assessment system)," Justice Abhay S. Oka stated, reading the judgment.
Read Also:-CJI Sanjiv Khanna: Defending Constitutional Values Amidst Trials
The Supreme Court has outlined new guidelines for the designation of Senior Advocates:
- Full Court Decision: The decision to grant senior designation must be taken by the full court of the Supreme Court or the respective High Courts.
- Transparent Application Review: All eligible applications must be presented to the full court with relevant documents.
- Consensus and Voting: Efforts should be made to achieve consensus. If not possible, democratic voting will decide.
- Secret Ballot Optional: The decision to use a secret ballot lies with the respective High Court, considering the case's circumstances.
- Eligibility Criteria: The minimum requirement of 10 years of practice remains unchanged.
- No Individual Recommendations: Judges cannot individually recommend candidates for designation.
- Annual Designation Process: At least one exercise of designation should occur every year.
Read Also:- Why NEET Must Go? Tamil Nadu's Fight for Educational Justice
Concerns and Background
The Supreme Court's decision was rooted in a review of the guidelines set in the Indira Jaising cases of 2017 and 2023. The court raised concerns over the following:
- Lack of Representation: Lawyers from trial courts were often overlooked.
- Excessive Weightage to Interviews: The interview process was criticized for being subjective and potentially discriminatory.
- Unfair Advantage: Lawyers with reported judgments had an advantage, sidelining those who practiced in trial courts.
During the hearings, the inclusion of bar members like the Attorney General in the Permanent Committee was questioned. Justice Oka asked whether bar members should have a role in the decision-making process of the full court.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta supported a secret ballot system, arguing for transparency. On the other hand, Senior Advocate Indira Jaising opposed the secret ballot, emphasizing the need for transparency and fair representation of gender, caste, and minority groups.
The Supreme Court’s decision is expected to bring significant reforms to the senior designation process, making it more transparent, fair, and democratic. High Courts have been instructed to amend their rules in line with this judgment within four months.
Case no. – Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 4299/2024
Case Title – Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt.) of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
