Advocates Act, 1961 – Designation of Senior Advocates – 100-point based assessment as provided in the Indira Jaising (2017) and Indira Jaising (2023) – Whether the scheme has achieved its desired objectives:
Held: The directions contained in paragraph 73.7 of Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (2017) 9 SCC 766 as amended by Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (2023) 8 SCC 1, shall not be implemented – The system of a 100-point-based assessment is not workable and has not achieved the desired objectives, as it tends to be highly subjective and is not rationally or objectively possible to assess an advocate’s calibre and standing. [Paras 60, 75] Advocates Act, 1961 – Interview/Interaction and participation of members of the Bar – Whether fair and legally permissible: Held: Subjecting an advocate with standing at the Bar to an interview violates the dignity of the profession – The two members of the Bar who are a part of the permanent committee will have to interact with the applicants – The applicants will be their colleagues by profession – The two members of the Bar are expected to be of very high standing nevertheless, all the applicants have access to them – The participation of two senior members of the Bar in the actual decision-making process of the permanent committee cannot be supported by law, as Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act confers this prerogative on the Supreme Court and High Courts. [Paras 64, 70]
Advocates Act, 1961 – Inclusivity and Diversity – Role of advocates practicing in Trial and District Courts – Whether they should be considered for designation:
Held: Designation of Senior Advocates cannot be a monopoly of advocates practicing in higher constitutional courts like the Supreme Court and High Courts – Advocates practicing in trial and district courts or specialized tribunals can possess the qualifications for designation, and their role is not inferior to the role played by advocates practicing in High Courts and the Supreme Court – All High Courts are directed to frame new rules within a period of four months, which must ensure inclusivity by evolving a mechanism to consider advocates practicing in the Trial and District Judiciary. [Paras 78, 79, 84]
Advocates Act, 1961 – Procedure for designation – Applications and recommendations – Whether applications are warranted or individual judges can recommend candidates: Held: The practice of advocates making formal applications for designation can be continued, as it has practical advantages and is treated as their consent for being considered – However, the Full Court can consider and confer designation on a deserving advocate even in the absence of an application after obtaining his/her consent – Individual judges of the Supreme Court or High Courts cannot recommend candidates for designation, as the decision is a collective one for the Full Court. [Para 77]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Harshit Anand, Hony. Associate Editor (Verified by: Kanu Agrawal, Adv.). Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.