Senior Advocate Designation Must Not Become a 'Distribution Mechanism': Solicitor General Tells Supreme Court

“We have nothing against any individual. When your lordships confer designation, your lordships confer responsibility on the person. Let that conferment not be converted into distribution”, he said.

Today, he stated that the system had become a subject of ridicule and highlighted the recent mass designation of senior advocates in Delhi High Court. This has also been challenged before the Supreme Court.

“All are competent and qualified, but I am sorry to say that the system has been subject to ridicule, fun, memes, and jokes. In Delhi High Court we have had 70 designations. All the advocates are floating. Judgements are always to be respected but judgement can always be revisited(referring to the Supreme Court's judgments laying down criteria for senior designations).”

A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih was dealing with a case involving false statements made by Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra in multiple remission pleas. During the hearing, the Court decided to address the issue of ensuring ethical practices by advocates.

Mehta had previously highlighted the broader issue of the Senior Advocate designation process under Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961 and sought a relook on the process.

Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, who was the petitioner in the judgments of 2017 and 2023, “strongly objected” to the Solicitor General's submissions, asserting that the procedure was already refined through the 2017 and 2023 judgments. Jaising has filed an intervention application to apprise the court of the developments that took place during the proceedings in which the 2017 judgment was passed.

Jaising argued that a two-judge bench could not revisit decisions made by a three-judge bench without appropriate applications for review. The 2017 judgment replaced the secret ballot system with an objective, point-based assessment.

“I take strong objections to statements. Just hear me for one second, and I'll leave it at that, because my learned friend in substance, is seeking to reopen two judgments of this court decided by benches of three judges each. With respect, I submit, if that's his intention, that he wants the system of senior designation to be reopened, I have no objection. He needs to make a written application stating his reasons. His application is in the nature of the review application. State the reasons, what's erroneous with those judgments, and go to the appropriate bench. A bench of two cannot, my lords, differ from a judgment of a bench of three judges”, she said.

Jaising pointed out that 2023 judgment rejected the Union's plea to completely reopen the 2017 judgment, wondering what was the role of the Union in senior designations.

The court adjourned the matter to concerning AoR responsibilities and guidelines to December 19, 2024, while deferring the hearing on Senior Advocate designation reforms to a subsequent date.

Background of the Issue

The Supreme Court's 2017 judgment in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India, which established a structured framework for designations. This judgment replaced the secret ballot system with an objective evaluation, including a point-based assessment and the establishment of a Permanent Committee. In 2023, the Supreme Court refined these guidelines, focusing on merit-based evaluations, promoting diversity, and addressing systemic concerns. However, the court rejected the Union's plea to completely overhaul the 2017 judgment.

The present case arose from a remission plea in a kidnapping case, where it was found that certain facts were suppressed in the petition filed through AoR Jaydip Pati under the instructions of Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra. The court's inquiry into this specific matter led to broader discussions on the conduct of AoRs and the Senior Advocate designation process.

Case no. – Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 4299/2024

Case title – Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt.) of NCT of Delhi & Anr.