[Senior Designation] ‘We Are Certainly Reducing The Weightage Given To Publication’: Supreme Court In Plea Seeking Reforms

The Supreme Court, on Thursday, reserved judgment in the 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).A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Ahsanuddhin Amanullah and Justice Aravind Kumar, heard the arguments put forth by Senior Advocates representing Supreme Court Bar Association, Supreme Court Advocate-on-Record Association, Secretary General of the Supreme Court of India, the Union Government. The 2017 judgment was passed in a petition challenging constitutional validity of Section 16 of the Advocate Act, 1961, which empowers the Supreme Court or a High Court to designate Senior Advocates. The petitioners had argued that the provision conferred unguided discretion upon Full Court to make determinations regarding designation of Senior Advocates. The Apex Court had upheld the validity of Section 16, but noted that certain parameters are required to be considered in the process of designating Senior Advocates. Exercising the liberty granted under a clause in the 2017 judgment, which permitted revisiting the guideline for modification, petitions were filed for some tweaking of the extant guidelines. Yesterday, the Bench heard submissions made by Senior Advocate, Ms. Indira Jaising, who is a petitioner, is one of the petitions before the Bench. Since the Court had already made it clear on an earlier occasion that it would first deal with the issues arising out of the general guidelines and once they are modified it may consider grievances of the respective High Courts, Ms. Jaising flagged the general issues. Appearing on behalf of the Supreme Court Bar Association, its President, Senior Advocate, Mr. Vikas Singh argued that in Section 16, ‘court’ is not defined. Neither have the Bar Councils of the State made any rules defining the same. In absence of any rules defining ‘court’, he suggested that the Apex Court, by judicial pronouncement, can clarify it to mean the Permanent Committee for the purpose of designation of Seniors. He submitted that though the Permanent Committee is a high-powered committee, in several High Courts its recommendation is overlooked by the Full Court. He argued that the Committee was constituted to ensure fairness in the system of designation. However, if its recommendations are not taken into consideration then the whole idea of having a Permanent Committee becomes futile. “The grievance that has come from several High Courts is that the top names suggested by the Committee are overlooked. This is against the concept of bringing in fairness in the system.”Justice Kaul thought that it might not be possible for the Bench to accept that the issue of designation can escape the scrutiny of the Full Court. He opined that the Full Court could have discretion, but only to reject recommendations of the Permanent Committee; or select someone from those who had been called for interview, but did not make the cut. The Judge made it abundantly clear that the pool from wherein the Full Court can select beyond the recommendation of the Committee can be limited only to those who qualified for the interview, but was not ultimately recommended by the Committee. With respect to secret ballot, Justice Kaul reckoned that it should be the last resort and the Full Court should preferably reach consensus through discussions. Mr. Singh pointed out certain issues relevant to the candidates whose applications are deferred. He submitted that there is a lack of clarity whether they should apply afresh or should not. It was asserted that there is no uniformity in the procedure followed by the High Courts in this regard.He beseeched the Bench to consider if some relaxation in the parameters can be given for the Counsels who have several years of practice. He submitted - “We say apply the strictest standard so far as youngsters are concerned but relax it for elderly.”Justice Kaul noted, ‘Age is a lesser fact, but some factor…Ultimately, that person has to give something. What they give is to raise the level of arguments before the Court; contribute in legal development…As a judge you appreciate Senior Counsels who can raise the level of an argument.”Mr. Singh emphasised that the interview can be conducted but only for the purpose of identification. With respect to publication he submitted that the parameter can be completely removed, but if the Court retains it then the weightage given to publication ought to be reduced. Senior Advocate, Mr. Aman Lekhi, appearing on behalf of Supreme Court Advocate-on-Record Association, made submissions on the issue regarding the discretion enjoyed by the Full Court. Justice Kaul assured him that the Full Court would not have access to the whole list of candidates, but only those who qualify for the interview and the ones who are recommended by the Permanent Committee. But, Mr Lekhi reiterated - “For the Full Court to...

[Senior Designation] ‘We Are Certainly Reducing The Weightage Given To Publication’: Supreme Court In Plea Seeking Reforms

Sohini Chowdhury

Tags