Why the Centre wants to revisit the process for designating senior advocates at Supreme Court, High Courts

Source: The post is based on the article “Why the Centre wants to revisit the process for designating senior advocates at Supreme Court, High Courts” published in Indian Express on 21st February 2023.

What is the News?

The Central government is seeking to change guidelines for the designation of senior lawyers. These guidelines were issued by the Supreme Court in the aftermath of its 2017 ruling in the case of ‘Indira Jaising vs. Union of India’.

How were advocates designated as senior advocates before the 2017 ruling?

The Advocates Act, 1961 states two classes of advocates – senior advocates and other advocates.

A senior advocate must be a deserving candidate in the opinion of the SC or an HC. It was the Chief Justice and the judges who designated an advocate as a ‘senior’ advocate.

What is the ‘Indira Jaising vs. Union of India’ case?

India’s first woman Senior Advocate Indira Jaising filed a petition in SC challenging the existing process of designation of senior advocate.

She termed this process as opaque, arbitrary and fraught with nepotism and sought greater transparency in the process of designating.

As a result, the Supreme Court decided to lay down guidelines for itself and all High Courts on the process of designating senior advocates.

The guidelines provide for the setting up of a “permanent committee” and a “permanent secretariat”.

Permanent Secretariat will be a body tasked with receiving and compiling all applications for designation with relevant data.

The secretariat forwards these proposals to the permanent committee for scrutiny. The CJI-chaired committee was to consist of two senior-most SC judges, the Attorney General of India, and a member of the Bar nominated by the chair and other members.

The committee then interviews the candidate and makes an overall evaluation based on years of practice, pro-bono work undertaken, judgments, publications, and a personality test.

Once a candidate’s name is approved, it will be forwarded to the Full Court to decide on the basis of the majority.

If the candidate gets the apt votes, then s/he is allowed to be designated as a senior advocate but if rejected then the applicant can send the application again only after the lapse of two years. The Full Court can also recall the designation of a senior advocate.

Why is the Centre trying to modify the guidelines now?

The current requirements for designation are arbitrary and have resulted in ousting of otherwise eligible candidates.

The point-based system, which awards 40% weightage to publications, personality and suitability, is subjective, ineffective, and dilutes the esteem and dignity of the honour.

The application seeks to reinstate the rule of a simple majority by a secret ballot, where the judges can express their views about the suitability of any candidate.