The Supreme Court recently set aside the 100-point assessment system for Senior Advocate designation, introduced through the Indira Jaising judgments of 2017 and 2023 (Indira Jaising-1 and 2). The Court noted that this system, aimed at ensuring transparency and fairness in awarding Senior Advocate status, failed to achieve its objectives over the past seven and a half years.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Issues Notice to Uttarakhand Officials Over Alleged Demolition of Registered Waqf Property
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, and Justice SVN Bhatti stated:
"The experience of the last seven and a half years shows that it may not be rationally or objectively possible to assess calibre, standing at the Bar, and the experience in law etc. of the Advocates who apply for designation on the basis of a point-based format. That has not achieved the desired objective."
The 100-point system aimed to maintain uniformity and objectivity in selecting Senior Advocates across the Supreme Court and High Courts. It was meant to curb lobbying and ensure merit-based selection. However, the Court identified several flaws:
Read Also:- Jharkhand High Court Delivers Judgments in 4 Criminal Appeals After Supreme Court's Intervention
- Role of Permanent Committee:
Although the Indira Jaising-1 judgment established Permanent Committees at the Supreme Court and High Courts to score applicants, the Court noted that these Committees, despite being advisory, effectively acted as recommending bodies.
"Though the scheme of Indira Jaising 1 and 2 does not confer a power on the Permanent Committee to recommend names, in practical terms, the exercise...is treated as a recommendation." - Involvement of Bar Members:
The Court questioned the legality of allowing Bar members to participate in the scoring process, stating this conflicted with Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, which vests the power of designation solely with the courts.
"The involvement of members of the Bar in the actual decision-making process...cannot be supported by law." - Duration of Practice Scoring:
Points were assigned based on the number of years an advocate practiced—up to 20 points for 20+ years. The Court found this approach flawed, as mere longevity did not guarantee merit.
"Only the number of years spent in practice cannot be a major criterion for designation by any stretch of imagination." - Interview Process:
Interviews, which contributed 25 points, were criticized for being brief and ineffective in assessing an advocate's capability.
"Interaction or interview for a few minutes...is not sufficient to assess the personality and suitability of the concerned Advocate."
The Court further highlighted the disrespect caused by subjecting senior advocates to interviews by their peers.
"It is not out of place to observe that subjecting an Advocate...to interview...violates the dignity of the noble profession."
Read Also:- Supreme Court Issues Notice to Uttarakhand Officials Over Alleged Demolition of Registered Waqf Property
- Excessive Focus on Written Work: The requirement for advocates to submit large volumes of judgments and submissions was seen as a burden on applicants and evaluators.
- Unreasonable Points for Publications: Assigning specific points for publications was considered unjust, as legal writing is an additional skill, not a mandatory criterion.
- Lack of Criteria for Integrity: The absence of a mechanism to evaluate an advocate’s character, honesty, and integrity was a significant drawback.
"No specific points have been assigned for character, honesty and integrity...it tends to be highly subjective."
Case no. – Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 4299/2024
Case Title – Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt.) of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
