Vanshika Bhalla
The Supreme Court of India on February 20, 2025 has raised concerns regarding the process of selecting Senior Advocates. A Division Bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan has referred the matter to Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna to determine whether a larger bench should examine these concerns. The Court emphasized that the designation is an honour granted by the Supreme Court or High Court and cannot be claimed as a right.
“While we respect prior rulings, we highlight these concerns to allow the Chief Justice to decide if they warrant consideration by a larger bench,” the Court noted.
One major concern was the reliance on interviews, which account for 25 out of 100 points in the evaluation process, raising questions about their effectiveness. The Court also stressed that advocates lacking integrity or fairness should not be granted the designation.
“If members of the Permanent Committee are aware that an applicant lacks integrity or has pending misconduct complaints, the current system does not allow them to reflect this in the evaluation,” the Court observed.
Additionally, the Court questioned whether senior judges should spend excessive time reviewing judgments, books, and articles submitted by candidates. It emphasized that the process of evaluating these materials is time-consuming and places an undue burden on the Chief Justice and senior judges, potentially diverting their attention from critical judicial responsibilities. The Court suggested that an alternative method should be considered to streamline this aspect of the selection process.
The Supreme Court also referred the case of Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra to the Chief Justice for further review, following allegations of misleading statements in court.
“Regarding Rishi Malhotra’s designation, we leave the decision to the Hon’ble CJI,” Justice Oka stated.
The Court also reaffirmed the responsibilities of Advocates-on-Record (AoRs) under Supreme Court Rules of 2013, emphasizing their duty to ensure petition accuracy.
“As AoRs hold a distinct position under the Rules, they must exercise diligence and responsibility,” the Court asserted.
The Supreme Court’s remarks highlight the need for a fairer and more transparent Senior Advocate selection process, ensuring that only the most deserving candidates receive the honour.
Case Name: Jitender v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Case Number: Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 4299/2024
Bench: Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan