Context: The Supreme Court has recently published new guidelines for the designation of senior advocates practicing in the Supreme Court (SC) after modification on order of the Indira Jaising case.

New guidelines by the Supreme court

• It prescribed the minimum age as 45 years to apply for designation as senior advocate.

• This age limit may be relaxed by the Committee consisting of the Chief Justice of India (CJI), or any Supreme Court judge if they recommend for a particular advocate in writing.

• No minimum age was prescribed under the guidelines, although designations in SC are considered at an age of more than 45 years, but younger advocates have also been designated.

• The final decision regarding age is decided by Permanent Committee and the Full Court.

• Only 5 marks would be given for publication of academic articles, experience of teaching assignments and guest lectures delivered in law schools and professional institutions connected with law.

• Previously 15 marks were given for this purpose.

• The weightage given to reported and unreported judgments (excluding orders that do not lay down any principle of law) has increased from 40 to 50 points.

Guidelines issued after Indira Jaising case

• The SC has released a list of “Guidelines to Regulate the Conferment of Designation of Senior Advocates” in 2018 as per the plea filed by Indira Jaising.

• Indira Jaising was India’s first woman Senior Advocate.

A “Committee for Designation of Senior Advocates,” or permanent committee for Designation of Senior Advocates was created with committee members being-

• Chief Justice of India - Chairperson

• Two senior-most SC judges

• The Attorney General of India

• A member of the Bar Council -nominated by the members

• The Committee has to meet at least twice a year.

Procedure for appointment of Senior Advocate as per the guidelines of 2018

• The Permanent Secretariat received application from the advocates or the CJI or any other judge can recommend the name of advocates.

• The Secretariat compiled all applications with relevant data, information, and the number of reported and unreported judgments.

• After this, the proposal for designation was published on the official website of the concerned court, inviting suggestions and views.

• It was forwarded to the permanent committee for scrutiny and evaluation was to be done based on certain criteria:

• Eligibility Criteria: 10–20 years of legal practice as an advocate, district judge, or judicial member of an Indian tribunal (qualification for eligibility must not be less than that of a district judge).

• The candidate was interviewed and evaluated based on a point system that gave marks for years of practice, pro-bono work undertaken, judgments, publications, and a personality test.

• After approval, the Full Court decided about the designation of advocate on the basis of the majority.

• It discouraged the system of voting by secret ballot, except in cases where it was unavoidable.

Appointment of Senior Advocate prior to the guidelines of 2018

• Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961 used to govern the appointment of senior advocates.

• Section 16 (1) stated that “There shall be two classes of advocates- senior advocates and other advocates.”

• Section 16 (2) allowed an advocate to be designated as a senior advocate if he has consented to it and if the SC or a High Court opined that he has special knowledge or experience in law and if he is worthy of such distinction.

• It was the CJI and other judges who can designate an advocate as a ‘senior’ advocate.

Need for change in guidelines

• Point-based system that awarded 40% weightage to publications, personality, and suitability that was decided through the interview.

• This system was subjective, ineffective, and dilutes the esteem and dignity to be conferred in a traditional manner.

• There was circulation of bogus or fake journals that published articles without any academic evaluation of the contents and quality, in exchange for a nominal amount.

• Certain requirements for designation were extraneous and resulted in avoiding other eligible candidates.

• The titles like Senior Counsel, Senior Advocate, and King’s Counsel were traditionally given to distinguished lawyers practicing in current or former Commonwealth countries.

• If the court feels that advocates deserve such recognition due to exceptional competence, contribution to the development of law, advocacy, and other factors it should grant the honour. 

• Reinstate the rule of a simple majority by a secret ballot, where the judges can express their views about the suitability of any candidate without embarrassment.

• The secret ballot would also minimize campaigning for votes by lawyers.