Arham Jain
| Petitioner | Indira Jaising |
| Respondent | Supreme Court Of India Through Secretary General |
| Case Number | Writ Petition (C) No. 454 of 2015 |
| Court | Hon’ble Supreme Court of India |
| Bench | Justices Aravind Kumar & Sanjay Kishan Kaul |
Background of the Case
In the case of Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court Of India Through Secretary General, the question was raised on the power of the Court to designate senior advocates. Although it is a matter of pride for the lawyer community as under this system if you have a good will and reputation with a certain amount of experience before the Hon’ble Supreme Court or High Court, the individual is designated as “Senior Advocate” of that Hon’ble Court. This keeps the advocates motivated towards the legal as they are awarded for their excellence and on the basis of their meritorious record. This also ensures the clients to believe in the justice system and the lawyers. The Court exercises their discretion in this matter.
Facts of the Case
As stated that in this case the question on the creditable designation of Senior Advocates. The Supreme Court in 2017 gave few guidelines on how to regulate the process of this designation, which is questioned in this case on the basis that it lacks transparency. Therefore, the main task before the Court is to refine the norms and guidelines set in the 2017 judgment and make it more transparent so that the authentication of the process and merit of the advocates cannot questioned ever in the future and the selected individuals could provide the best assistance to the Court and to the litigants. The case also suggested some modification in the process as the question was raised on the criteria of selection as to what credentials are to be taken, by the selection committee, while deciding upon the matter.
Issues Raised
The issue raised before the Hon’ble Court is to remove the question on the authentication in the process of designation of Senior Advocates. The concerns were regarding the lack of fairness and transparency in the process. Also, the court was to determine the criteria which determine the eligibility of the advocates to qualify as senior advocates, for example, knowledge in the specific field, experience, reputation & good will,l and many other factors.
Key provisions discussed
Under the Advocates Act of 1961, Section 16 discusses the power to the Supreme Court and High Court in designating an advocate to a senior advocate as per their discretion. The 1973 Advocates (Amendment) Act, designed and modified the criteria, for the designation of senior advocates, based on the experience of law, special knowledge of the law, and standing at the bar (experience in litigation).
The Court also referred to the Supreme Court Rules of 2013. In Rule 2 of Order IV, the power of the Supreme Court to designate advocates as senior advocates as per their discretion is given which is also applicable to the designation of senior advocates in the Supreme Court.
Contentions of the Parties
- Petitioner: The petitioner contended that in the designation of senior advocates, the process is truly based on the discretion of the Full Bench Court who decide through vote by secret ballot, this lacks transparency and fairness in the process and raises questions on the unbiased nature of the process. Therefore, the petitioner proposed establishing the constitution of the Permanent Committee for the designation of senior advocates.
- Defendants: The Supreme Court Bar Association and other parties argued that the designation criteria might not fairly represent the advocacy abilities of active advocates, especially the focus on publications. They addressed worries about the usefulness and applicability of publications as a criterion for designation.
Observation by the Supreme Court (2017)
The Supreme Court while passing the judgment in this case, recognized the need to reform the designation process. Hence the court by establishing the constitution of the Permanent Committee, for the designation of Senior Advocates, brought consistency in the process ensured the transparency and fairness of the process and upheld the unbiased nature of the judiciary in India. This committee will examine and verify the data of the potential candidates, for the designation of Senior Advocates, provided by the Secretariat or the concerned authorities. The criteria for the same is also established for the Permanent Committee to refer to while selecting. The following heads are to be taken into consideration by the Committee:
- Experience in years or Standing at the bar
- Publications
- Interview
- Judgments, domain experience and expertise in specific fields, etc
The court also affirmed that the list is not exhaustive, the reconsideration can also be called upon.
Observation by the Supreme Court (2023)
The Court noted that the current Senior Advocate designation process lacked impartiality, equity, and accountability. The designation standards have drawn criticism, especially for their focus on publications and their applicability in evaluating advocacy abilities. The Court clarified in this case that the matter before the court is to fine-tune existing norms in the process of designation of Senior Advocates rather than reviewing the whole judgment. Hence Court looked at the viability and loopholes of the process. The Court instead of changing or amending the whole process, just takes into reconsideration the issues that the advocates are facing in the designation process and fills in the gaps accordingly.
In order to balance the requirements for designation, the Supreme Court opted to increase the amount of points in certain categories while reducing points from others. The Court sought to strengthen the designation process’s general neutrality and transparency while addressing the parties’ complaints. Additionally, observations regarding the status of designation applications pending before the courts were put forward. However, the Court ruled that the new standards must also take into account the older applications.
Conclusion
The Court highlighted that the Full Court’s authority to designate someone suo motu would not be removed and could still be used for remarkable and outstanding counsel with the Full Court’s consent. The Court also explained that rather than going over the entire ruling, the current procedures were aimed at improving the current standards. In order to ensure a just and merit-based method of determining legal success in India, the Supreme Court’s ruling in the case sought to rectify the weaknesses in the current system of selecting Senior Advocates and enhance the procedure. The Supreme Court through this gives more clarity over the process which helps the lawyers and the general public to understand the method of selection. Through this decision, the Supreme Court upholds the dignity of the Senior Advocates in obtaining such a title as well as the legal profession overall by largely assisting in restoring public trust in the accessibility, equity, and uniformity of the designation process.
Click here to access the order
Instagram: Click here.
LinkedIn: Click here.
For Collaboration and Business: info.desikaanoon@gmail.com