Senior Advocate Designation : Supreme Court Reduces Points Assigned For Publication; Expands Its Scope To Include Teaching Assignments and Guest Lectures
On Friday, while delivering its judgment in pleas seeking modifications in the guidelines regulating the conferment of designation of Senior Advocates as laid down in its 2017 judgment (Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India), the Supreme Court said that it would reduce the weightage given to publication in the existing guidelines. Noting that the allocation of 15 points for publication in...
On Friday, while delivering its judgment in pleas seeking modifications in the guidelines regulating the conferment of designation of Senior Advocates as laid down in its 2017 judgment (Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India), the Supreme Court said that it would reduce the weightage given to publication in the existing guidelines. Noting that the allocation of 15 points for publication in the 2017 judgment is high, it reduced the same to 5 points. The Apex Court emphasised that the quality of writing should be an important factor in allocating points.
A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Ahsanuddhin Amanullah and Justice Aravind Kumar opined that though doing away with the category of publication would not be wise, the ambit of the category should be expanded to include teaching assignments or guest courses delivered by advocates at law schools. The Bench opined that the same would be a more holistic reflection of the advocates; ability to contribute to the critical development of law; will show their interest in guiding and helping their peers at the Bar.
The Bench left it open to the Permanent Committee to decide on the manner in which the points are to be assigned under the category of publication. It indicated that if need be the Committee would be at liberty to seek external assistance (Senior Advocates or academics) to gauge the quality of publications. It noted –
“We are conscious that this would increase the load of the Secretariat assisting the Permanent Committee, but that is inevitable.”
When the pleas were taken up for hearing, Senior Advocate, Indira Jaising, petitioner-in-person, had argued that a candidate applying to be designated as a Senior Advocate is duty bound to contribute to public life and publication is one of the ways of demonstrating the same. Senior Advocate and President of the Supreme Court Bar Association, Vikas Singh submitted that the category of publication be completely removed. In case the Court retains it, he suggested that the weightage be reduced. Senior Advocate, Aman Lekhi, appearing for the Supreme Court Advocate-on-Record Association, had also suggested reducing the weightage given to publication. He had implored the Bench to consider legal drafts as publication. Additional Solicitor General Madhavi Divan, appearing on behalf of the Secretary General of the Supreme Court submitted that one who does not have publications, but some other means of contributing to public life (teaching, pro bono work) should not be disadvantaged.
The Bench acknowledged that Senior Advocates are required to contribute to academic teaching, writing, and research, and to the process of continuing legal education. However, it noted that most practicing advocates find very little time to write academic articles; academic publications require a different aptitude. Considering the fact that academic knowledge of law is a prerequisite for Senior Advocates to make nuanced submissions, the Bench refused to do away with the category of publication.
For other reports about the judgment, refer here.
[Case Title: Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India MA 709/2022 in WP(C) No. 454/2015]