Supreme Court Flags Concerns Over Senior Advocate Designation System, Calls for Comprehensive Review

Last Updated on February 23, 2025 by Amit Patra

The Supreme Court cast serious doubts on the existing system for the appointment of senior advocates, challenging key provisions of the system made by the historic Indira Jaising judgments of 2017 and 2023. A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih found nine key concerns that could be put before a larger bench for scrutiny.

At the heart of the Court’s issues is whether the advocates can be self-appointable to senior status given that Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act considers it to be a privilege to be conferred rather than sought. The court was suspicious about the efficacy of the prevailing points system and the practice of carrying out speedy interviews worth 25 points for evaluating the candidate’s competence.

The Court was especially concerned with the system’s inability to take account of character and integrity sufficiently. Even if committee members know of outstanding disciplinary complaints or suspicious behavior, they cannot lower points on such grounds under the current system. This restriction has the potential to enable unscrupulous lawyers to be chosen solely on a technical basis.

Some of the issues raised with serious concerns include logistical burden on the five-member Permanent Committee to sift through many judgments and publications that would be provided by the candidates, mechanical point allocation based on years of practice without regard to actual practice, and the potential loss for trial court practitioners who do not have multiple reported judgments but possess wealth of experience.

The question came up in a case of false affirmations by a Senior Advocate in several remission pleas, and it led to an overall review of the system of designations. The bench has asked the Registrar General to put these questions before the Chief Justice of India for consideration of referring the issue to a larger bench.

This shift signals a potential adjustment in how the legal community identifies its best practitioners, with the Court emphasizing that any system must ensure only genuinely deserving advocates are awarded the honorific title. The bench’s observations suggest that transparency and objectivity must be balanced with a more nuanced review of candidates’ professional reputation and integrity.