Supreme Court expresses 'serious doubt' over process of designating senior advocates

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday expressed "serious doubts and concerns" over its previous judgments, which laid down mandatory guidelines for conducting interviews and awarding points by a permanent committee for the purpose of granting lawyers coveted senior advocate designation by the constitutional courts.

"We mean no disrespect to the two binding decisions (by three-judge bench in Indira Jaising case in 2017 and 2023), and we are recording our concerns only to enable the Chief Justice of India, to decide whether the doubts expressed by us need consideration by an appropriate larger bench," a bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih said.

Dealing with a matter where a senior advocate allegedly misrepresented facts in a case, the court said, the process needs reconsideration on several points, viz on seeking applications, conducting interviews, and holding secret ballots and ignoring trial court lawyers for it.

The Court said the best possible way should be devised and ultimately, the endeavour of all stakeholders must be that only deserving advocates get the designation as contemplated under the Advocates Act.

"Those who are designated senior advocates have a different status and high standing in the legal system. Therefore, it is imperative that only those advocates who deserve the designation in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 16 should be conferred designation. If undeserving candidates are designated as senior advocates it affects the prestige and dignity of the institution of the judiciary, as it is the privilege of the High Courts and this Court to grant such designation," the bench said.

The bench asked whether the court should permit applications to be made for grant of designation, though the statute does not contemplate that.

The court also asked whether mere experience in terms of number of years of practice is sufficient.

On conducting interview for the purpose, the bench wondered, "by making such an advocate appear for an interview, are we not compromising on his or her dignity?"

"Are we not converting it into a selection process? Whether by interviewing a candidate for a few minutes, his personality or suitability can be really tested," the bench asked.

The court also felt the system of voting by secret ballot also needs serious reconsideration.

On trial court lawyers, the bench asked, "Whether the guidelines give sufficient opportunity to them...(as it) cannot be the monopoly of the advocates practising in higher Constitutional Courts like this court and the High Courts".

The court's order also elaborated on the role Advocates on Record in the Supreme Court, saying when a petition or appeal is not drafted by him or her, the one who files it, is entirely and wholly responsible to this court.

The Supreme Court in last two years liberally designated a number of advocates as senior advocates.