Supreme Court Upholds Constitutionality of Designation of Senior Advocates, Lays Down Uniform Guidelines to Ensure Transparency and Objectivity

Landmark Judgment in Ms. Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court Emphasizes Merit-Based Criteria and Establishes Permanent Committee for Designation Across India’s Courts

In a landmark judgment delivered on October 12, 2017, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justices Ranjan Gogoi, Rohinton Fali Nariman, and Navin Sinha, ruled on the constitutionality and procedure concerning the designation of Senior Advocates under Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961. The petition, filed by Ms. Indira Jaising, a Senior Advocate herself, challenged the current system of designation as arbitrary, opaque, and violative of constitutional provisions, seeking the establishment of clear, uniform guidelines and a permanent selection committee.

The Court undertook an extensive review of the historical origins of the Senior Advocate designation, drawing parallels with similar systems in jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom, Nigeria, Australia, Singapore, and Ireland. It noted the evolution of the legal profession and the significance of recognizing advocates of exceptional merit and standing, while also acknowledging concerns about the subjectivity and exclusivity of the current designation process in India.

The petitioners contended that the existing system violated Articles 14 (Equality before law), 15 (Prohibition of discrimination), and 21 (Protection of life and personal liberty) of the Constitution, and also challenged the designation as a “title” in violation of Article 18. They argued that the designation creates an unjust hierarchy and imposes undue financial burdens on litigants due to high fees charged by Senior Advocates.

The Supreme Court, however, upheld the constitutionality of Section 16 of the Advocates Act, explaining that the designation is not a title but a recognition based on ability, standing at the Bar, and special knowledge or experience in law. The Court emphasized that while the power to designate is subjective, it must be exercised on objective, verifiable criteria to prevent arbitrariness.

Importantly, the Court acknowledged the lack of uniformity in the designation process across various High Courts and the Supreme Court itself. It observed that parameters such as minimum age, years of practice, and income thresholds varied widely, sometimes resulting in inconsistent and unfair outcomes.

To address these concerns, the Court laid down comprehensive guidelines to govern the designation of Senior Advocates uniformly across India:

1. Establishment of a Permanent Committee for Designation of Senior Advocates for the Supreme Court and each High Court, headed by the Chief Justice and including two senior-most judges, the Attorney General (or Advocate General), and a nominated senior advocate member.

2. Creation of a permanent Secretariat responsible for compiling data on candidates’ reputation, integrity, pro bono work, reported judgments, and domain expertise.

3. Publication of designation proposals on the respective court websites to invite suggestions and objections from stakeholders.

4. An interview process and a point-based assessment format evaluating:

 - Years of practice (20 points)

 - Judgments, pro bono work, and domain expertise (40 points)

 - Publications (15 points)

 - Personality and suitability (25 points)

5. Recommendations by the Permanent Committee to be considered by the Full Court, with voting by secret ballot used only when unavoidable.

6. Provisions for review or reconsideration of rejected candidates after two years.

7. Authority of the Full Court to recall the designation if a Senior Advocate is found guilty of conduct unbecoming of the status.

The Court also dispensed with the necessity of minimum income criteria, reasoning that income varies by legal field and pro bono contributions should not be penalized. Instead, it recommended a minimum of 10 years of practice as a more appropriate eligibility criterion.

The judgment further addressed pending challenges concerning guidelines adopted by the Meghalaya High Court, directing the High Court to reconsider amendments that allowed advocates practicing outside its jurisdiction to be designated as Senior Advocates, thus preserving the integrity of the designation process.

This ruling is expected to bring greater transparency, fairness, and uniformity in the designation of Senior Advocates, ensuring that only the most deserving lawyers are recognized for their excellence, thereby enhancing the quality and dignity of the legal profession in India.

Statutory provisions

Section 16, Advocates Act, 1961; Rule 2, Chapter IV, Supreme Court Rules, 2013

Ms. Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India Through Secretary General, (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 908262