Senior Designations Can't Be Monopoly Of SC & HC Advocates : Supreme Court Flags Lack Of Opportunities For Trial Court Lawyers

One of the several concerns raised by the Supreme Court about the present senior designation system is the lack of sufficient opportunities for trial court lawyers.

In a judgment delivered yesterday, a bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice AG Masih outlined certain concerns about the present 'point-based assessment system' to designate Senior Advocates, which has been evolved through the judgments delivered in the Indira Jaising case in 2017 and 2023.

The two-judge bench referred the matter to the Chief Justice of India to take an appropriate decision on making a larger bench reference.

Trial lawyers cannot gain points for "reported judgments".

The two-judge bench observed that though there are many eminent lawyers practising exclusively before the trial courts, they present guidelines do not give them sufficient opportunities for senior designation. The bench noted that the trail court lawyers do not stand to gain sufficient points for "reported judgments", which is a creteria carrying 50 points in the 100-point assessment system. Only the judgments of the Supreme Court and the High Courts get reported in the accredited law reports.

After outlining other areas of concerns (which can be read here), the judgment stated :

"There is one more serious area of concern. Whether the guidelines give sufficient opportunity to the advocates practising in our Trial Courts to get designated. There cannot be any dispute that we have very eminent lawyers practising exclusively before our Trial Courts who have the ability, standing and experience in law. They are outstanding public prosecutors and defence lawyers. In most cases, their arguments may not always have legal formulations, as reflected in the judgments in cases wherein they appear. The submissions will necessarily be based on facts. They will not have reported judgments to their credit. Such advocates do not stand to gain sufficient points against Sr. No. 2 in paragraph 73.7. We are of the view that designation under sub-section (2) of Section 16 cannot be the monopoly of the advocates practising in higher Constitutional Courts like this Court and the High Courts. Chapter 6, in part VI of the Constitution of India, in a sense, gives the status of Constitutional Courts to our trial and district courts"

Detailed background of the case and the other reports published about the judgment can be read here.

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