The Supreme Court directed the discontinuation of the point-based assessment system for conferring Senior Advocate designations, while calling for High Courts to frame new rules within four months. The three-judge bench, constituted to reassess the framework laid down in the Indira Jaising judgments of 2017 and 2023, held that the process must reflect fairness, inclusivity, and institutional discretion. It underscored that designations should be based on collective judicial decision-making, not numerical scoring.

Brief Facts:

The decision arose from a suo motu reference made earlier this year by a two-judge bench, which raised concerns over the practical and ethical implications of the current point-based evaluation system used in designating Senior Advocates. The original issue stemmed from a case involving false statements made by a designated Senior Advocate in multiple remission pleas. This triggered broader judicial introspection into the framework governing Senior Advocate appointments under Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961.

As per the previous system, a Permanent Committee comprising senior judges and top law officers (such as the Attorney General or Advocate General) awarded marks based on set criteria, 20 points for years of practice, 50 for reported judgments, 5 for publications, and 25 for interviews. However, concerns were raised regarding the rigidity, potential bias, and lack of representation for district and trial court practitioners.

Contentions:

 

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Supreme Court, strongly advocated for scrapping the numerical evaluation model altogether, urging the adoption of a secret ballot voting system by the Full Court. He contended that evaluation based on subjective elements such as ‘personality’ undermines transparency and proposed that judges must refrain from making individual recommendations. He also emphasised the inclusion of district court lawyers to ensure wider representation.

Attorney General R. Venkataramani partially supported the existing framework but proposed the removal of interviews and acknowledged the burden it imposed. He asserted that while the Permanent Committee’s recommendations were important, the ultimate decision must lie with the Full Court.

Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, the petitioner in the original 2015 case that led to the reform, resisted the idea of secret ballots and defended the value of interviews in assessing overall suitability. She demanded greater transparency, including live-streaming of Full Court proceedings, and representation from marginalised groups.

SCAORA President Vipin Nair, while opposing a complete overhaul, suggested calibrated reforms such as reducing interview marks and increasing transparency in the scoring process.

Observations of the Court:

 

Reading out the operative portion, Justice Abhay S. Oka observed, “We direct that the directions contained in Paragraph 73.7 of Indira Jaising I, as amended by Indira Jaising II, shall not be implemented. The point-based assessment system shall be discontinued.”

The Court further laid down new procedural directions for all High Courts:

  1. Full Court Authority: The authority to confer the designation of Senior Advocate shall exclusively lie with the Full Court of the respective High Court or the Supreme Court, ensuring institutional decision-making.

  2. Screened Applications Only: Only those applications that have been preliminarily scrutinised and deemed eligible by the Permanent Secretariat shall be placed before the Full Court for final consideration.

  3. Consensus Preferred, Voting Permissible: While the Court emphasised that efforts must be made to arrive at a consensus, in the absence of unanimity, the Full Court may adopt a democratic voting mechanism, such as a secret ballot, depending upon the factual and institutional context of each High Court.

  4. Ten-Year Practice Rule Unaltered: The Court affirmed that the minimum requirement of ten years of standing at the Bar, as earlier stipulated in Indira Jaising (I), remains valid and does not warrant reconsideration.

  5. Applications Optional but Permissible: Advocates may continue to submit voluntary applications for consideration. However, the Full Court retains inherent authority to confer the designation suo motu in exceptional or deserving cases, even in the absence of an application.

  6. No Individual Recommendations Permitted: The Court clarified that under Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, no individual judge, whether of the High Court or Supreme Court, is permitted to recommend any candidate for designation, ensuring that the process remains collective and institutional.

  7. Mandatory Annual Exercise: Each High Court shall mandatorily conduct at least one round of the designation process every calendar year, thereby institutionalising regularity and opportunity.

  8. Old Regime May Continue Temporarily: Ongoing or pending designation processes initiated under the point-based system, as per Indira Jaising I and II, may be concluded under the existing norms. However, no fresh applications shall be entertained until new and compliant rules are duly framed and notified by the respective High Courts.

The Court emphasised that both the Supreme Court and High Courts must revise their existing designation rules within four months in accordance with these guidelines. Periodic review of the system was also advised to ensure continued improvement.

The decision of the Court:

The bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, and Justice SVN Bhatti thus set aside the point-based criteria established under Indira Jaising (I & II) and directed all High Courts to amend their rules accordingly. Until new rules are framed, no new designations shall be initiated. The Court also recorded its appreciation for Indira Jaising's sustained efforts in reforming the designation process and stressed the need for transparency, representation, and merit in future frameworks.

Picture Source :

 
Siddharth Raghuvanshi