Supreme Court Issues Notice On Indira Jaising's Plea Against Use Of "Secret Voting" To Confer Senior Designations

The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice on an application filed by Senior Advocate Indira Jaising seeking a declaration that the process adopted by certain High Courts to confer senior designations through the process of secret voting of the full court is "arbitrary and discriminatory".The application has also sought a clarification with regard to the cut-off marks to be obtained by a candidate to be designated as a senior advocate;A Bench comprising Justice UU Lalit, Justice Ravindra Bhat and Justice PS Narasimha issued notice after hearing detailed submissions by Senior Advocate Indira Jaising. At the outset, Senior Advocate Indira Jaising clarified that she hasn't challenged anyone's designation, and her only concern is with regard to the interpretation of the top Court's judgement in the case regarding designation. She added that a clarification from the Court will be helpful to both the Supreme Court and the High Court.She referred to the following directions from the Court's 2017 judgement in her case in which guidelines were issued for senior designation:Court directed constitution of permanent committee to examine each case in the light of the data provided by the Secretariat of the Permanent Committee; interview the concerned Advocate; and make its overall assessment on the basis of a point-basedThe guidelines enumerated above may not be exhaustive of the matter and may require reconsideration by suitable additions/deletions in the light of the experience to be gained over a period of time. This is a course of action that we leave open for consideration by this Court at such point of time that the same becomes necessary. Voting by secret ballot will not normally be resorted to by the Full Court except when unavoidable. In the event of resort to secret ballot decisions will be carried by a majority of the Judges who have chosen to exercise their preference/choice.Heart Of My Petition Was That Voting Is a Subjective Procedure & We Need An Objective Procedure: Senior Counsel JaisingReferring to these directions, Senior Counsel Jaising submitted that we now have an experience of 4 years with regard to how this system has functioned not just in Supreme Court but also in the High Courts.She submitted that the very idea of giving points was to evaluate a person to be designated as a senior, and the entire heart of the petition filed by her was that voting is a subjective procedure and we need an objective procedure. She pointed out that the Court laid down the guidelines recognising the need for an objective criteria.Supreme Court & High Courts Should Announce Cut Off Marks: Senior Counsel JaisingThe Senior Counsel submitted that the Supreme Court used a cut off of 50 marks to consider Applications for designation. She suggested that all courts should announce what are the cut off marks in their rules and Supreme Court should also announce cut off marks."One cannot say it has to be permanent feature, it depends on the kind of numbers that you have, the kind of entire lot before you. If everyone has secured more than 60 marks then you've to go for stricter standards. So therefore committee will certainly evolve", the Bench said.Senior Counsel Jaising however opined that another way of looking at it would be to have a certain amount of predictability.Responding to Jaising's submissions, Justice Ravindra Bhat that everything isn't symmetrical and while one batch of Judges can be liberal with the marking, the other batch may be strict."One batch of judges may evaluate and be liberal, the other batch may be strict, when we are looking at it, it has to be comparative also. There has to be some consistency. Unlike in a selection where fairness requires you do so before the process begins, this isn't a selection in that sense, its more of a recognition", Justice Bhat said. Designation of Senior Shouldn't Be Monopolistic Practice: Senior Counsel JaisingJaising further submitted that the purpose of her petition in her perception was that not enough seniors were being designated. One of the issues that she had raised was that designation of seniors shouldn't become a monopolistic practice. She stated that she had pointed out what happened in United Kingdom where the matter had gone to Competition Commission and the entire process had become transparent. Inherent Contradictions In Going On Basis Of Marks & Switching To Voting: Senior Counsel JaisingSenior Counsel Jaising submitted that there is an inherent contradiction in going on the basis of marks and then switching to voting. Citing examples of Punjab and Delhi, she submitted that people who got the required cut off lost out at the last stage of voting. Therefore the general guideline has come into being that anyone who has to be designated not only needs to have cut off marks but also meet the test of voting.10 Points Be Granted For 10 Years Experience Followed By One Point for Every Year:Senior Counsel JaisingWith regard to the marking system, Senior Counsel ...

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Indira Jaising's Plea Against Use Of "Secret Voting" To Confer Senior Designations

Srishti Ojha

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Srishti Ojha

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Indira Jaising's Plea Against Use Of "Secret Voting" To Confer Senior Designations

Srishti Ojha

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Srishti Ojha

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers