‘Legal Profession No Longer A Family Profession; Newcomers Must Be Encouraged’: Supreme Court Encourages Diversity In Senior Designations

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 emphasised on the importance of the aspect of diversity in the process of designation of Senior Advocates.

“The legal profession is no longer considered as a family profession. Instead, there are newer entrants from all parts of the country and with different backgrounds. Such newcomers must be encouraged"

A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Ahsanuddhin Amanullah and Justice Aravind Kumar noted that the legal profession is no longer a family profession. It was of the opinion that consideration of diversity, especially with respect to gender and first generation lawyers would go a long way in encouraging meritorious advocates to come into the legal field as they would be assured that there is scope to rise to the top in the profession.

The present petitions seek modification of the 2017 judgment. The said judgment was passed in a petition challenging constitutional validity of Section 16 of the Advocate Act, 1961, which empowers the Supreme Court or a High Court to designate Senior Advocates. The petitioners had argued that the provision conferred unguided discretion upon Full Court to make determinations regarding designation of Senior Advocates. The Apex Court had upheld the validity of Section 16, but noted that certain parameters are required to be considered in the process of designating Senior Advocates. Exercising the liberty granted under a clause in the 2017 judgment, which permitted revisiting the guideline for modification, petitions were filed seeking the court’s indulgence in tweaking of the extant guidelines.

When the Bench was hearing these petitions seeking modification, Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, one of the petitioners, had argued that diversity on the basis of gender, caste, sexuality, etc. should be mandated in the designation process. She had suggested that if there is a scope for introducing interviews, then the issue of diversity can be taken into consideration at that stage. Justice Kaul had assured the Senior Advocate that the same is kept in mind while designating Seniors even under the existing guidelines.

For report on other parameters discussed in the judgment, refer here.

[Case Title: Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India MA 709/2022 in WP(C) No. 454/2015]

Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 425

Click here to read the judgment