Source: The post Supreme Court ruling deepens inequality among lawyers has been created, based on the article “Practising equality in constitutional courts” published in “The Hindu” on 28th June 2025
UPSC Syllabus Topic: GS Paper2- Structure, organisation and functioning of the Executive and the Judiciary
Context: The Supreme Court of India, in Jitender @ Kalla vs State (2025), revised how senior advocates are designated. It revisited the Indira Jaising cases (2017, 2023) and asked High Courts to frame new rules. Although it seemed internal, the issue has deep implications for judicial and political democracy.
Legal Plutocracy and the Problem of Classification
- Section 16 and Institutionalised Inequality: Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961, created two categories—senior advocates and advocates. This legal distinction was based on ability, standing, or special knowledge. It introduced unequal treatment among equals, fostering elitism in the legal profession.
- Impact on Justice and Professional Ethics: This division disrupted the egalitarian idea of justice and encouraged commercialisation of the legal profession. It made the system resemble the U.S. model, where access to justice is skewed in favour of elite lawyers and corporate clients.
- Lessons from the U.S. Model: A 2014 Reuters report, The Echo Chamber, showed that in the U.S., 66 lawyers out of 17,000 influenced 43% of Supreme Court appeals from 2004 to 2012. These top lawyers mostly represented corporate firms. India risks a similar outcome if inequality within the legal system persists.
Judicial Endorsement of a Flawed System
- Reforms Rejected in Indira Jaising (2017): Justice Gogoi’s judgment in Indira Jaising rejected challenges to Section 16 and the Supreme Court Rules. It upheld the classification system and pre-audience provisions, ignoring the charge of systemic discrimination.
- Limited Changes in Jitender (2025): The Jitender verdict acknowledged that the point-based system was “highly subjective.” Yet, it allowed the application process to continue and advised rule changes by High Courts. The Court avoided reconsidering the core issue of classification.
- Constitutional Concerns Ignored: Critics argued that the classification lacked any link to improving the legal system and was inherently arbitrary. The Court’s justification—that Supreme Court-prescribed parameters ensure fairness—failed to address the root of the problem.
Flawed Criteria and Structural Bias
- Subjective Evaluation Process: The Court admitted flaws in the criteria but kept the structure unchanged. This allows bias and arbitrariness in choosing senior advocates, with potential for exclusion based on gender, caste, or class.
- Neglect of India’s Legal Legacy: India’s legal profession, rooted in the freedom struggle and Nehruvian socialism, emphasised social justice. The Court cited foreign practices like those in Nigeria and Australia, while ignoring Indian constitutional values and historical context.
- Elite Bias and Marginalisation: The system promotes ‘homo social morphing’—judges favour those like themselves. Women and marginalised groups are excluded. Even the Court admitted the parameters were flawed but did not order systemic correction.
Inequality in Legal Representation
- Courtroom Monopolies and Exclusion: Thousands of capable lawyers remain unseen, while a few elite lawyers dominate key cases. This leads to an undemocratic legal system that excludes diverse voices.
- Weakening of Judicial Diversity: Cases like the Waqf (Amendment) Act show how national matters are argued by a select few. Litigation becomes a rich man’s privilege, which contradicts the constitutional promise of equality.
- Court’s Missed Opportunity: Despite identifying flaws, the Court did not refer the matter to a larger Bench. It upheld a divisive system, failing to align with the constitutional ideal of fairness and equal opportunity.
Question for practice:
Examine how the Supreme Court’s approach to the designation of senior advocates reflects systemic inequality within the Indian legal profession.
