The Supreme Court has recently flagged significant concerns regarding the present system of senior advocate designations, particularly the lack of sufficient opportunities for lawyers practicing in trial courts. In a judgment delivered by a bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice A.G. Masih, the court expressed the need to reassess the 'point-based assessment system' used for granting senior advocate status.
The existing system, shaped by previous rulings in the Indira Jaising case (2017 and 2023), has been criticized for favoring advocates practicing in the Supreme Court and High Courts while marginalizing equally competent trial court lawyers. Recognizing this issue, the two-judge bench has referred the matter to the Chief Justice of India for consideration by a larger bench.
The Supreme Court observed that trial court lawyers do not gain sufficient points under the current assessment system. The key concern arises from the 'reported judgments' criterion, which carries 50 points in the 100-point assessment system. Only judgments from the Supreme Court and High Courts are published in accredited law reports, leaving trial court lawyers at a disadvantage.
Highlighting this issue, the court stated:
"There is one more serious area of concern. Whether the guidelines give sufficient opportunity to the advocates practicing in our Trial Courts to get designated. There cannot be any dispute that we have very eminent lawyers practicing exclusively before our Trial Courts who have the ability, standing, and experience in law. They are outstanding public prosecutors and defense lawyers."
Many skilled trial court advocates, despite their experience and legal expertise, fail to accumulate the required points due to the lack of reported judgments in their favor. Their arguments often revolve around factual intricacies rather than legal formulations, which limits their chances of earning recognition under the current framework.
The bench emphasized that the system should not function as an exclusive privilege of advocates practicing in constitutional courts. Notably, Chapter 6 of Part VI of the Constitution recognizes trial and district courts as essential components of the judicial framework. The court further stated:
"Designation under sub-section (2) of Section 16 cannot be the monopoly of the advocates practicing in higher Constitutional Courts like this Court and the High Courts."
This acknowledgment by the Supreme Court underscores the pressing need for a more inclusive and equitable designation process.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Dismisses Culpable Homicide Charge Against Doctor, Orders Trial for Negligence
Background of the Case: Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt.) of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
The case in question, Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt.) of NCT of Delhi & Anr., raised important issues concerning the conduct of lawyers and the standards required for senior designation. The criminal appeal stemmed from a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the appellant, Jitender, who was convicted under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). His conviction was previously upheld, mandating a 30-year sentence without remission.
The Supreme Court scrutinized the legal representatives involved in the case and observed certain lapses in conduct, particularly the non-disclosure of material facts while filing the SLP. This led to the discussion about the need for stricter guidelines for advocates-on-record and senior advocates.
Key Takeaways and Future Implications
- Review of the Senior Designation System: The Supreme Court’s concerns highlight the necessity for revisiting and possibly amending the senior designation system to ensure fair representation for trial court lawyers.
- Broader Judicial Recognition: Trial court lawyers play a crucial role in the legal system, and their exclusion from senior designation opportunities undermines their contributions.
- Call for a Larger Bench: The matter has been referred to the Chief Justice of India for further deliberation, indicating the potential for significant changes in the system.
- Judicial Integrity and Conduct: The court’s scrutiny of lawyer conduct in Jitender @ Kalla reinforces the importance of transparency and ethical practice in legal proceedings.
Case no. – Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 4299/2024
Case Title – Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt.) of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
