'Be Liberal In Conferring Senior Designation' : SCBA President Requests Supreme Court

The President of Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), Dr.Adish C Aggarwala, Senior Advocate, in a letter to the Chief Justice of India on Wednesday, has urged the Top Court to be "liberal" in its approach in conferring the title of Senior Advocate to candidates who have applied in the upcoming round of selection, since this is only the second selection process to have taken place in the last 8 years. 

Pointing out that the upcoming selection for Senior Advocates is taking place after a gap of 4 years, the SCBA has requested the top court to be ‘liberal in designating meritorious and deserving candidates’.

The letter also states that since in the last 8 years the designation process has taken place only once, 355 advocates have applied in the present round. “It is respectfully prayed that the large number of applications should not dissuade this Hon’ble Court from designating meritorious and deserving candidates.” the SCBA requests the CJI in its letter.

The letter also highlights that the Top Court in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India had modified the procedure and criteria for selection laid down in its 2017 judgment. The Court had said that it is not imposing an absolute age restriction of 45 years to apply for senior designation, however, only 'exceptional' young advocates can be designated below this age. The SCBA in its letter has asked the Court to be liberal in applying this criteria in the current round of selection, as the selection process began on 25th February 2022, and the judgement in Indira Jaising’s case was modified only 12th May 2023.

“…this Hon’ble Court should be liberal in applying this criterion and meritorious and deserving candidates under 45 years of age should be considered for designation at par with other candidates. It is settled principle of law that eligibility criteria should not be changed after the process has already commenced leading to disqualification of candidates, who were otherwise qualified when the process had begun.” SCBA President’s letter states.

The letter also highlights the delays and changes in selection procedure and criteria that have taken place in the process due to the Covid-19 pandemic and because the procedure was under challenge before the Apex Court. 

 The letter notes that although this process took place on April 23, 2015, due to the subsequent challenge of the procedure in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India, the designation process remained suspended.

The Supreme Court's judgment on October 12, 2017, upheld the constitutionality of Section 16 of the Act but introduced objective criteria for Advocate designation. The Apex Court at that juncture had noted that certain parameters are required to be considered in the process of designating Senior Advocates. Subsequently the selection process was reinitiated in 2018 and concluded in March 2019. Due to factors such as the COVID-19 pandemic, the process was delayed for around four years, the letter points out.

The letter states that the process was reinitiated on February 25, 2022, and over a year and a half has passed without conclusion to the selection process. It notes that over the past eight years, designations have only occurred once, resulting in a significant number of applications—355 Advocates—in the current round. The letter urges the court not to let the volume of applications dissuade it from designating deserving candidates.

In the previous designation process ending on March 27, 2019, out of 105 applicants, 37 were designated as Senior Advocates. Additional designations followed subsequently. The letter points out that a large number of designations occurred in the last round due to a four-year gap between processes, similar to the current situation.

The letter also suggests that since litigants come from diverse backgrounds to the Top Court, the Court should ensure an adequate number of deserving Senior Advocates to provide a voice for those with limited means. Restricting designations could raise costs and limit access for average litigants, the SCBA says.

“It may also be noted that this Hon’ble Court is the final court of appeal. The litigants have no further remedy against the orders passed by this Hon’ble Court. Hence, the litigants always prioritize engaging designated Senior Advocates before this Hon’ble Court. The litigants belong to all strata of life. Hence, this Hon’ble Court should strive to ensure that sufficient number of meritorious and deserving Senior Advocates are available, who can give voice and representation to the not so affluent class of litigants.If the number of designations is restricted significantly, as is being apprehended, it would lead to making existing Senior Advocates more unaffordable and denial of accessibility to an average litigant.”

The letter also refers to the recent decision of the Supreme Court whereby it dismissed a review petition against its judgment allowing lawyers with 10 years experience to be considered for consumer commission appointments. 

“If a lawyer with 10 years standing is fit to become President of State Consumer Commission, which performs judicial function, then he should be equally eligible to be considered for designation as Senior Advocate. The role of a Senior Advocate cannot be placed at a higher pedestal than a role which entails performance of judicial function.” the letter suggests.