Senior Advocate Designation : Supreme Court Says Role Played By Lawyers In Cases To Be Assessed Than Counting Mere Appearances
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 enhanced the weightage given to miscellaneous category including pro bono work, reported and unreported judgments and domain expertise by 10...
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 enhanced the weightage given to miscellaneous category including pro bono work, reported and unreported judgments and domain expertise by 10 points.
A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Ahsanuddhin Amanullah and Justice Aravind Kumar accommodated the 10 points in the miscellaneous category after reducing the weightage given to publication from 15 to 5 points.
Judgments and Not Orders To Be Considered
The Bench clarified that the candidates are required to submit judgments and not orders and only judgements are to be considered in the process of designation as Senior Advocates. Emphasis on judgment, it clarified, is because it usually deals with significant and contested legal issues.
Mere Appearance Not Enough, Assess Role Played By Lawyers In The Matters
It was observed that assessment is required to be made of the role played by the candidate in the proceedings are also to be considered. The same is to be indicated in the application. It suggested that mere presence in a matter would not be sufficient.
"we ought to also consider the role played by the advocate in the proceedings. In recent times, and particularly in the Supreme Court, the number of advocates present for a matter are very high. However, that is not ipso facto reflective of the assistance that they are providing to the Court. A matter may be argued by a counsel who may be assisted by others, including an Advocate-on-Record. Thus, an assessment would have to be carried out in enquiring into the role played by the advocate in the matter they have appeared in with their role specified by them in their application. Merely looking into the number of appearances would not be enough
We believe that this would also take care of any perceived disadvantages arising due to the larger number of appearances by Government counsel, as compared to counsel who are engaged in private work."
Permits Filing of 5 Best Synopses
The Bench agreed that quality of synopses filed in Court is important for analysing the role of lawyers and permitted the candidates to submit five of their best synopses for evaluation with their applications.
Concession In Number of Appearance For Specialised Lawyers With Domain Expertise
The Bench noted that a large number of advocates are exclusively practicing before specialised tribunals. They appear before the Apex Court only when their matters travel to the Supreme Court. It observed that given the circumstances, their appearance may be less. However, it stated that the same should not act as a disadvantage in the process of being designated as a Senior Advocate. Therefore, the Bench suggested that a concession be given to these lawyers with respect to the number of appearances. It noted -
“Specialised lawyers with domain expertise should be permitted to concentrate on their fields and not be deprived of the opportunity of being designated as Senior Advocates…This category of advocates and their expertise is also essential for the advancement of all specialized fields of law.”
Under the miscellaneous category, the Bench also encouraged considering the interest of diversity in the process of designation. It observed -
“The profession has seen a paradigm shift over a period of time, particularly with the advent of newer law schools such as National Law Universities. 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.”
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