Supreme Court Modifies Guidelines For Senior Advocate Designations; Says Process Should Be Done At Least Once A Year

The Supreme Court, on Friday, passed directions in 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 directed that the method of "secret voting" by the full court should be the exception and not the rule. Resorting to 'secret voting' will defeat the purpose of the assessment made by the permanent committee of the High Courts. If secret voting is resorted to, special reasons must be assigned, the bench stated, while emphasising that senior designation is an honour to be conferred.As regards cut-off marks, the bench said that is difficult to prescribe cut-off marks in advance.Reduces marks for publicationRegarding the marks to be assigned for publications, the bench said that the permanent committee can analyse the quality of the journal in which the article is published. The bench has fixed 5 marks as the marks for publications, reducing it from the earlier allotment of 15 points. The bench noted that quality of writing by an Advocate should be an important factor allocating points under this category. The Permanent Committee has the discretion to decide on the manner of assigning points under this category, including the possibility of taking external assistance to assess the quality of publication. The bench also said that this criteria need not be confined to academic articles alone and can taken into account teaching assignments or guest courses delivered by advocates at law schools. Increases marks for reported/un-reported judgment pro-bono workThe points for notable reported/unreported judgments and pro-bono work has been increased by 10.Noting that synopsis filed before the Court is a useful indicator in assessing assistance rendered by an Advocate to the Court, the bench noted that candidates should be permitted to submit 5 of their best synopses. It also indicated that for lawyers practicing before specialised Tribunals who come before the Apex Court only when the matter travels to the Top Court, should be granted concession regarding the number of appearances. Addressing concern of diversity, especially with respect to gender and first generation of lawyers, the bench noted that consideration of the same would encourage meritorious Advocates to come into the field knowing that there is scope for rising to the top. "Legal profession is no longer considered a family profession", the bench observed.The bench also upheld the criteria of 'personal interview' and kept 25 marks for it. It noted that the bench believes that interview would allow for a more personal and in-depth assessment of the candidate. In order to make the interview process more workable, the bench granted discretion to the Permanent Committee to restricted the number of interviews to the appropriate amount as considered feasible by it. Further, directions were issued to ensure that the the process of senior designation should be carried out at least once a year. Also, the Court said that it is not imposing an absolute age restriction of 45 years to apply for senior designation. Exceptional young advocates can be designated below this age.The power of suo motu designation for exceptional candidates by full court will remain. The full order is yet to be uploaded.The bench held that the pending applications would be considered under the new norms set out in the present judgment. However, it granted liberty to the candidates to modify or replace their applications in terms of the new guidelines. The Bench had heard the submissions made 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 over a span of two days and reserved judgment on 16th March, 2023. 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 seeking the court’s indulgence in tweaking of the extant guidelines. Voting by secret ballot: Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, petitioner-in-person, addressed several issues including the practice of the Full Court to take decisions based on voting by secret ballot and by the rule of majority. According to her, a system of marking and a system of secret ballot are...

Supreme Court Modifies Guidelines For Senior Advocate Designations; Says Process Should Be Done At Least Once A Year

Sohini Chowdhury

Tags