The Supreme Court of India has scheduled a hearing on March 19 to deliberate on the reconsideration of the 'Indira Jaising' judgments of 2017 and 2023. These landmark rulings define the process through which advocates are designated as Senior Advocates.
A bench comprising Justice Abhay Oka, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, and Justice SVN Bhatti has issued notices to all High Courts and relevant stakeholders. This development arose from concerns flagged by a two-judge bench in the case Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt.) of NCT of Delhi & Anr (Crl.A. No. 865/2025, Diary No. 12735 / 2024), which questioned aspects of the procedure outlined in the 'Indira Jaising' rulings.
Court's Directive to High Courts
The bench directed the Registrar (Judicial) to notify all High Courts by forwarding a copy of the order along with the ruling in the Jitender Kalla case. The High Courts have been invited to submit their responses and suggestions by March 7. Additionally, other interested parties from the Indira Jaising case may file written responses by March 6.
"We direct the Registrar (Judicial) to forward a copy of this order along with the copy of the order in Jitender Kalla case to Registrar Generals of all the High Courts informing them that the date is fixed on 19th March and the High Courts are free to submit their responses and suggestions, if any, well in advance on or before 7th March. If any other party to the Indira Jaising case wants to file a response in writing, it shall be on or before 6th of March," the Court stated.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Eases Conditions for Appointment of Ad Hoc Judges in High Courts
Since the Indira Jaising I and Indira Jaising II rulings were passed by three-judge benches, the current two-judge bench referred the issue to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) for the formation of a larger bench.
Senior Advocate Indira Jaising contended that any reconsideration of these judgments must be undertaken by an even larger bench. The Court acknowledged this argument and allowed her to present her case on the matter.
"At this stage, we may also note her contention that if Indira Jaising I and Indira Jaising II are to be reconsidered, it has to be by a larger bench of larger strength. However, it will be open for her to canvass the issue," the Court said.
The Court also issued notices to the respondents in the Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India case, where the 2017 judgment was delivered. Since Advocate Vipin Nair, President of the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA), was present on behalf of SCAORA, the Court stated that separate notice to them was unnecessary.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta assured the Court that he would inform the Attorney General for India and the Union of India so they could be represented in the proceedings. The Court subsequently issued notices to the remaining respondents.
During the upcoming hearing, the Attorney General will be given the first opportunity to present arguments, followed by the Solicitor General and other counsel involved in the Indira Jaising and Jitender Kalla cases. Senior Advocate Indira Jaising will have the final opportunity to make submissions before the bench.
In its ruling last week, the Supreme Court underscored that the designation of Senior Advocates must be based strictly on merit, as awarding it to undeserving candidates could undermine the judiciary’s credibility.
Key concerns raised by the Court include:
- Eligibility Criteria: Whether an advocate can seek designation, considering Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act states that the privilege is conferred solely by the Supreme Court or High Courts.
- Interview Process: The effectiveness of brief interviews in assessing an advocate’s personality and suitability for the designation.
- Evaluation Metrics: Whether the points-based evaluation system adequately accounts for integrity, fairness, and active involvement rather than merely considering years of practice.
- Impact on Advocates' Dignity: Whether the interview process diminishes the dignity of advocates and transforms the designation process into a mere selection exercise.
- Disadvantage to Trial Court Lawyers: The existing system may disadvantage meritorious trial court lawyers, as they may struggle to secure points under the category of ‘reported judgments.’
The reconsideration of the Indira Jaising judgments could lead to significant changes in the process of conferring the Senior Advocate designation. If modifications are made, they could ensure a more transparent and equitable system, addressing concerns about fairness and accessibility for advocates across different levels of practice.
The legal fraternity eagerly awaits the Court’s decision on this crucial matter, as it could redefine the standards and principles governing the designation of Senior Advocates in India.
Case Title - Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt.) of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
Case no. - Crl.A. No. 865/2025 Diary No. 12735 / 2024
