The Supreme Court recently reserved its judgment regarding the reconsideration of its 2017 and 2023 rulings on the designation of senior advocates. These judgments had laid out specific guidelines for the process, aiming to ensure fairness and transparency in conferring senior status to advocates.

A three-judge bench comprising Justices Abhay Oka, Ujjal Bhuyan, and SVN Bhatti heard arguments from Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, the petitioner in these landmark cases. She proposed modifying the selection criteria, specifically suggesting a revision in the weightage given to interview marks to enhance fairness.

"The way to determine cutoff marks can be derived from the UPSC model, where an average of all candidates' scores is taken, and a set margin is added. This would ensure a more objective and transparent selection process," Jaising explained.

Last month, a two-judge bench had raised concerns about the existing procedures for senior designation. Following this, the three-judge bench was constituted and issued notices to High Courts and other relevant stakeholders. Several key issues were flagged, including:

• The allocation of 25 marks for interviews.
• The lack of a structured mechanism to evaluate candidates' integrity.
• The challenges posed by the point-based evaluation system.
• Whether senior designation should be an application-based process.

Read Also:- SC Collegium Proposes Eight New Judges for Gujarat High Court

During discussions, the Court questioned the involvement of Bar members in the decision-making process, as the final authority to confer senior designation lies with the Full Court.

Jaising argued that before the 2017 ruling, different High Courts followed varied procedures for senior designation. She emphasized the principle of equal opportunity under Article 14 of the Constitution and proposed reducing interview weightage from 25 to 10 or 15 marks.

"Interviews can be manipulated. In public sector recruitment, they are assigned minimal weight. Similarly, for senior designations, reducing interview marks is crucial for fairness," she contended.

Justice Oka raised concerns over the Permanent Committee's limited power to deduct marks based on integrity issues, stating that a lawyer could still score well in other evaluation areas despite integrity concerns.

"Judges often observe lawyers' conduct in court, which reveals their integrity. Assigning significant marks to an interview does not fully reflect a candidate’s legal competence," he noted.

Jaising suggested incorporating integrity and professional reputation into the evaluation process. She recommended additional assessment methods, such as reviewing mentorship of junior advocates, maintaining proper financial records, involvement in pro bono work, and contributions to legal literature. She also cited Nigeria’s practice of requiring candidates to submit audited accounts.

The Supreme Court also deliberated on the necessity of secret ballots during Full Court deliberations. Jaising argued against secret ballots, asserting that the senior designation process is not equivalent to an electoral process.

"Secret ballots are essential in political elections to prevent victimization, but for judicial designations, consensus should be the primary approach," she explained.

She further argued that the discretion to opt for secret ballots should rest with the Full Court rather than being a mandatory requirement.

"Every rule may have an exception. The decision on secret ballots should not be a judicial mandate but left to the Full Court’s discretion," she added.

Read Also:- Government-Acquired Land Cannot Be Reversed Through Private Agreements: Supreme Court

Justice Oka pointed out the difficulty in assessing candidates based on judgments they have contributed to, questioning how much of a judgment reflects a lawyer’s individual input.

"Written submissions often contain more arguments than those presented in court. We must find a way to assess actual contributions," he remarked.

Jaising emphasized the need for transparency in the selection process, opposing judges providing written recommendations for candidates.

"A written recommendation from a judge carries significant weight, which disrupts a level playing field," she argued.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta opposed incorporating foreign practices into India's senior designation process, stressing the need to align it with India's legal system.

"Every country has its unique judicial challenges. It is time we focus on re-Indianizing our jurisprudence rather than blindly adopting foreign methods," Mehta stated.

Advocate Mathews Nedumpara raised constitutional objections to Section 16 of the Advocates Act, arguing that the senior designation system was discriminatory and hindered access to justice. He contended that there was a perception that only senior advocates could effectively represent cases.

Presenting data, he alleged that familial ties to judges or politicians often influenced High Court judgeships and senior advocate designations. He also criticized the separate dress code for senior advocates, claiming it violated Article 14 of the Constitution. However, the Court clarified that the constitutional validity of this provision was not under examination in this case.

Case No.: Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 4299/2024

Case Title: Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt.) of NCT of Delhi & Anr.