Senior Designation Procedure Needs Relook : Solicitor General Tells Supreme Court

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted before the Supreme Court on Monday (November 18) that the procedure of conferring senior designation to advocates under Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961 requires a reconsideration.

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih was hearing a case in which it has noted recurring instances of false statements made in various remission pleas by Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta suggested that the process of Senior Advocate designation might require reconsideration. Referring to the Supreme Court's 2017 judgment in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India and its subsequent refinement in 2023, he noted that the 2017 judgment may require reconsideration. Mehta stated that the Union of India had previously attempted reforms but had not succeeded, as per the 2023 judgment.

“Maybe without any individual case being named, but the system of designation also need a little relook. I attempted, my lordships, the Union of India attempted, but it could not fructify. And for this reason, we'll just place it and we'll leave it to the wisdom of your Lordships and the learned amicus”, Mehta said.

The Court acknowledged this suggestion and indicated that it would consider the issue on the next date, i.e., December 6, 2024. "Learned Solicitor General of India made submission that without going into the cases of individuals, wider issue needs to be considered about the procedure followed for designation of advocates as senior advocates in accordance with the section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961. We will consider the said issue on the next date."

Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961, categorizes advocates into Senior Advocates and other advocates. Senior Advocates are designated based on their ability, standing at the Bar, or special knowledge or experience in law. The designation is intended to recognize advocates of exceptional merit and is governed by specific guidelines established by the Supreme Court and High Courts.

Mehta referred to the Supreme Court's 2017 judgment in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India, which introduced a structured framework for Senior Advocate designations. The 2017 judgment replaced the earlier secret ballot system with an objective point-based assessment and established a Permanent Committee to oversee the process.

Mehta referred to the 2023 judgment of the Supreme Court, which fine-tuned the 2017 guidelines by emphasizing merit-based evaluation, promoting gender diversity, and refining criteria such as publication points, judgment contributions, and interviews. However, this judgment rejected the Union's plea to completely reopen the 2017 judgment. The Court wondered what was the role of the Union in senior designations. The judgment observed :

"An endeavour was made by the Union of India to reopen the 2017 Judgment itself. That however is not our remit in the present applications. We are not at the stage of a review or a reference of the matter to a larger Bench. We are only on the aspect of fine- tuning what has been laid down by this Court in the 2017 Judgment. It is also pertinent that the then Attorney General was present throughout the oral hearings that culminated in the 2017 Judgment. There is also the question of what the role of the Union can even be at this stage, particularly as the Bar Council of India, which is the representative body of the lawyers is being represented before."

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

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