Supreme Court of India
JITENDER @ KALLAversusSTATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR.
- Citation
- 2025 INSC 667
- Decided
- 13 May 2025
- Disposal
- Reference answered
- Bench
- ABHAY S OKA
Holding
The Court struck down the point‑based assessment under paragraph 73.7 of Indira Jaising I (as amended), held that bar members cannot partake in the decision‑making process, and affirmed that designation must be conferred by the Full Court with applications serving as consent, directing High Courts to frame new rules within four months.
Summary
The Supreme Court examined the procedure for designating Senior Advocates after concerns were raised in Jitender @ Kalla regarding the 100‑point assessment and the role of bar members in the Permanent Committee. It considered whether the point‑based system introduced in Indira Jaising I and modified in Indira Jaising II is workable, whether members of the Bar may participate in decision‑making under Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, and whether advocates practising only in trial courts should be eligible. The Court held that the point‑based assessment is subjective and cannot be implemented, that bar members cannot be part of the decision‑making process, and that designation must be conferred by the full court with an application serving as the advocate’s consent. It affirmed that applications may continue, but individual judges cannot recommend candidates and that High Courts must frame new rules within four months. The judgment also directed that the practice of secret ballots and special gowns be left to the discretion of the High Courts and emphasized the need for periodic review and inclusivity.
Issues considered
- Whether the 100‑point assessment scheme for Senior Advocate designation laid down in Indira Jaising I and modified in Indira Jaising II should be reconsidered.
- Whether the inclusion of members of the Bar in the Permanent Committee for designation is permissible under Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961.
- Whether advocates practising exclusively in trial courts, district courts and specialized tribunals should be considered for Senior Advocate designation.
- Whether the practice of inviting applications from advocates for designation is warranted under Section 16(2) or designation should be by conferment with the advocate’s consent.
- Whether individual judges of the Supreme Court or High Courts may recommend candidates for designation.
- Whether secret ballot voting should be mandatory in the Full Court for Senior Advocate designation.
- Whether the practice of Senior Advocates wearing a special gown is legally justified.
Legislation cited
- Advocates Act, 1961s. 16(1), s. 16(2), s. 16(3), s. 16(4), s. 34
- Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 142, s. Article 145(1)(a), s. Article 15, s. Article 21, s. Article 227(2)(b)
Headnote
Issue for Consideration (a) Whether the 100-point assessment laid down in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (2017) 9 SCC 766 and modified in Indira Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (2023) 8 SCC 1 for the designation of Senior Advocates require reconsideration in light gained and concerns expressed. (b) Whether the inclusion of members of the Bar in the Permanent Committee for designation is legally permissible under Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961, which confers the power of designation exclusively on the Supreme Court and High Courts. (c) Whether
Subjects
Senior AdvocateDesignationAdvocates ActPoint‑based assessmentPermanent CommitteeFull CourtDiversityInclusionInterviewSecret ballotTrial CourtsHigh CourtsArticle 142Article 145Article 227Legal profession
Judgment
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1933 : 2025 INSC 667
Jitender @ Kalla
v.
State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Anr.
(Criminal Appeal No. 865 of 2025)
13 May 2025
[Abhay S. Oka,* Ujjal Bhuyan and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
(a) Whether the 100-point assessment laid down in Indira Jaising v.
Supreme Court of India (2017) 9 SCC 766 and modified in Indira
Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (2023) 8 SCC 1 for the
designation of Senior Advocates require reconsideration in light
of the experience gained and concerns expressed.
(b) Whether the inclusion of members of the Bar in the Permanent
Committee for designation is legally permissible under Section
16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961, which confers the power of
designation exclusively on the Supreme Court and High Courts.
(c) Whether advocates practising in trial courts, district courts,
and specialized tribunals—who may not have reported judgments
but possess ability, standing, and experience—should also be
considered for designation, so that designation is not monopolised
by advocates practicing in High Courts and the Supreme Court.
(d) Whether the practice of inviting applications from advocates
for designation is warranted under the scheme of Section 16(2),
or whether designation should only be by conferment by the Court
with the advocate’s consent.
Headnotes†
Advocates Act, 1961 – Designation of Senior Advocates –
100-point based assessment as provided in the Indira Jaising
(2017) and Indira Jaising (2023) – Whether the scheme has
achieved its desired objectives:
Held: The directions contained in paragraph 73.7 of Indira Jaising v.
Supreme Court of India (2017) 9 SCC 766 as amended by Indira
Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (2023) 8 SCC 1, shall not be
implemented – The system of a 100-point-based assessment is not
* Author
1934 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
workable and has not achieved the desired objectives, as it tends
to be highly subjective and is not rationally or objectively possible
to assess an advocate’s calibre and standing. [Paras 60, 75]
Advocates Act, 1961 – Interview/Interaction and participation
of members of the Bar – Whether fair and legally permissible:
Held: Subjecting an advocate with standing at the Bar to an
interview violates the dignity of the profession – The two members
of the Bar who are a part of the permanent committee will have to
interact with the applicants – The applicants will be their colleagues
by profession – The two members of the Bar are expected to be
of very high standing nevertheless, all the applicants have access
to them – The participation of two senior members of the Bar in
the actual decision-making process of the permanent committee
cannot be supported by law, as Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act
confers this prerogative on the Supreme Court and High Courts.
[Paras 64, 70]
Advocates Act, 1961 – Inclusivity and Diversity – Role of
advocates practicing in Trial and District Courts – Whether
they should be considered for designation:
Held: Designation of Senior Advocates cannot be a monopoly of
advocates practicing in higher constitutional courts like the Supreme
Court and High Courts – Advocates practicing in trial and district
courts or specialized tribunals can possess the qualifications for
designation, and their role is not inferior to the role played by
advocates practicing in High Courts and the Supreme Court – All
High Courts are directed to frame new rules within a period of four
months, which must ensure inclusivity by evolving a mechanism
to consider advocates practicing in the Trial and District Judiciary.
[Paras 78, 79, 84]
Advocates Act, 1961 – Procedure for designation – Applications
and recommendations – Whether applications are warranted
or individual judges can recommend candidates:
Held: The practice of advocates making formal applications for
designation can be continued, as it has practical advantages and
is treated as their consent for being considered – However, the
Full Court can consider and confer designation on a deserving
advocate even in the absence of an application after obtaining
his/her consent – Individual judges of the Supreme Court or High
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1935
Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Anr.
Courts cannot recommend candidates for designation, as the
decision is a collective one for the Full Court. [Para 77]
Case Law Cited
Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India [2017] 10 SCR 478 :
(2017) 9 SCC 766; Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India [2023]
5 SCR 434 : (2023) 8 SCC 1; Amar Vivek Aggarwal v. High Court
of Punjab & Haryana (2022) 7 SCC 439; E.S. Reddy v. Chief
Secretary, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh [1987] 3 SCR 146 : (1987) 3
SCC 258 – referred to.
List of Acts
Advocates Act, 1961; Constitution of India.
List of Keywords
Senior Advocate; Designation; Standing at the Bar; Ability; Special
knowledge of law; Interview; Point-based assessment; Permanent
Committee; Full Court; Secret ballot; Trial Courts.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
865 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 08.01.2024 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in WPCRL No. 72 of 2024
With
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 454 of 2015 and Interlocutory Application
No. 36111 of 2023 in Miscellaneous Application No. 262 of 2023
in Writ Petition (Civil) 454 of 2015 and Interlocutory Application
No. 45959 of 2022
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General, Dr. Anindita Pujari, Mohan v.
Katarki, Aruneshwar Gupta, Nachiketa Joshi, Sr. Advs., Rajesh
Ranjan, Ms. Shraddha Deshmukh, Kanu Agarwal, Digvijay Dam,
Chitvan Singhal, Raman Yadav, Rajeshwari Shankar, Arvind Kumar
Sharma, Ms. Indira Jaising, Paras Nath Singh, Shaileshwar Yadav,
Rohit Kumar, Shailendra Singh, Sandeep Goyal, Ashish Pandey,
1936 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Jaydip Pati, Ms. Nina Nariman, Ms. Geetika Kapur, Malak Manish
Bhatt, Ms. Samridhi, Ms. Ensha Chhabra, Ms. Saumya Raj, Rajat
Sehgal, Manish Raghav, Kumar Kartikey, Ms. Neelu Sharma, Sumit
Saddi, Kartik Hooda, Himanshu Singh Dhillon, Anirudh Kaushi, Vivek
Sharma, Milind Kumar, Rajiv Kataria, For M/S. Delhi Law Chambers,
A.P. Dhamija, Ms. Tanya Sharma, Ms. Bharti Tyagi, Devvrat,
Ms. Harshita Sharma, Shivam Singh, Devesh Kumar Agnihotri,
Dr. M.V.K. Moorthy, M. Kumar, Ms. Laxmi, Hitendra Nath Rath.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General, Gaurav Pachnanda, Dr. Anindita
Pujari, Mohan V Katarki, P.S. Patwalia, Ajit Sinha, Shailesh Madiyal,
P.S. Patwalia, Ajit Sinha, Sunil Kumar, Sr. Advs., Mukesh Kumar
Maroria, Annam Venkatesh, Zoheb Hussain, Vivek Gurnani, Mrs.
Astha Singh, Bhuvan Kapoor, Digvijay Dam, Pranav Sachdeva,
Jatin Bhardwaj, Abhay Nair, P Rohit Ram, Vipin Nair, Ms. Sharmila
Upadhyay, Sarvjit Pratap Singh, Sahil Tagotra, Ms. Shreya Bansal,
Ms. Nikita Jaitly, Sujay Jain, Paras Nath Singh, Shaileshwar
Yadav, Rohit Kumar, Shailendra Singh, Adarsh Mishra, Sandeep
Goyal, Ujjawal Gaur, Harshvardhan Vishen Mall, Ravi Raghunath,
Prateek K Chadha, Ahanthem Henry, Ahanthem Rohen Singh,
David Ahongsangbam, Mohan Singh, Aniket Rajput, Ms. Khoisnam
Nirmala Devi, Kumar Mihir, Ashok Mathur, Ms. Deveshi Chand,
Ms. Divija Mahajan, Korada Pramod Kumar, Ankolekar Gurudatta,
Varun Thakur, Ramkaran, Umesh Babu Chaurasiya, Anilendra
Pandey, Kunal Chatterji, Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Rohit Bansal,
R.S. Kamvani, Sanjiv Kumar Jain, Ms. Kavya S. Lokande,
Ms. Madhvi S. Sawant, Jitender Kumar, Amitabh Pandey, Merusagar
Samantaray, Ashok Mathur, Ms. Deveshi Chand, Anandh Kannan
N., Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, Mrs. Nandini Gore, Prashant
Singh, Mrs. Yugandhara Pawar Jha, Tuhin, Ms. Radhika Gautam,
Pai Amit, Ms. Pankhuri Bhardwaj, Abhiyudaya Vats, Tathagata Dutta,
Anirudh Sanganeria, Ms. Mayuri Raghuvanshi, Avinash Sharma,
Ms. Udita Singh.
Advs. for the Intervenor:
Mathews Nedumpara, Ms. Hemali Kurna, Umesh Babu Chaurasia,
Vipin Nair, Amit Sharma, Nikhil Jain, Kaustav Shukla, Mohd. Aman
Alam, Aditya Narendranath, Mrs. M.B. Ramya, Madhavi Yadav,
Mrs. Deeksha Gupta.
Petitioner-in-person.
Applicant-in-person.
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1937
Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Anr.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Abhay S. Oka, J.
INDEX*
FACTUAL BACKGROUND _____________________________ 3
A. Indira Jaising – 1 __________________________________ 4
B. Indira Jaising – 2 __________________________________ 9
C. Order expressing doubts with Indira Jaising-1 and Indira
Jaising-2 and inviting attention of the Hon’ble Chief Justice __ 12
D. Constitution of this Bench ____________________________ 21
E. Interlocutory Applications ____________________________ 23
SUBMISSIONS ______________________________________ 25
CONSIDERATION ____________________________________ 49
A. Scheme of Section 16 of the Advocates Act ______________ 49
(i) Ability ________________________________________ 52
(ii) Standing at the Bar _____________________________ 53
(iii) Special Knowledge of Law ________________________ 54
B. The reasons recorded for exercise of Jurisdiction under
Article 142 of the Constitution in Indira Jaising-1 __________ 56
C. 100 Point based Overall Assessment – The basis of Decision
Making __________________________________________ 66
(i) Participation of the Members of the Bar in the process of
100 Points based Overall Assessment _______________ 68
(ii) Duration of Practice _____________________________ 70
(iii) Interview or Interaction ___________________________ 72
* Ed. Note: Pagination as per the original Judgment.
1938 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
(iv) Reported and Unreported Judgments, Pro Bono Work
and Domain Expertise/Experience __________________ 74
(v) Publications ___________________________________ 76
D. Reconsideration in terms of Paragraph 74 of Indira Jaising-1
and paragraph 51 of Indira Jaising-2 ___________________ 77
E. Judges Recommending Candidates ____________________ 78
F. Whether Applications for Designations are warranted ______ 79
G. Diversity and Inclusivity in the Process __________________ 80
H. Income and Minimum Practice ________________________ 81
I. Secret Ballot ______________________________________ 82
J. Practice of Senior Advocates using a Special Gown ________ 83
K. Need to frame proper Rules __________________________ 83
L. Permanent Secretariat _______________________________ 85
M. Need to Periodically Review the Procedure ______________ 85
CONCLUSIONS _____________________________________ 86
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
1. By the judgment of this Court in the case of Jitender @ Kalla v.
State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Ors1 [for short, “Jitender @ Kalla”],
a Bench of two judges of this Court expressed certain concerns
regarding the process of designation of Senior Advocates laid down
in the decision of this Court in the case of Indira Jaising v. Supreme
Court of India2 [for short, “Indira Jaising-1”]. The Bench directed
that the concerns expressed by it be placed before the Hon’ble
Chief Justice of India for considering whether the issues arising
out of the said concerns need to be placed before a larger Bench
1 2025 INSC 249
2 (2017) 9 SCC 766
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1939
Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Anr.
of appropriate strength. As per the administrative order passed
by the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, the issues arising out of the
process of designating Advocates as Senior Advocates raised in
the judgment dated 20th February 2025 in Jitender @ Kalla have
been placed for consideration before this Bench. Before we delve
into the concerns and issues raised by the Bench of two judges, it is
important to consider the factual history that gave rise to the issues
which require consideration.
A. Indira Jaising – 1
2. Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (for short, “the Advocates
Act”) creates two classes of Advocates, namely, senior Advocates
and other Advocates. Under Sub-Section (2) of Section 16 of the
Advocates Act, the Supreme Court and High Courts have the power
to designate an Advocate as a Senior Advocate with his consent.
Earlier, the Supreme Court and High Courts, in exercise of powers
under Section 16, followed distinct systems of designating Senior
Advocates. A Writ Petition was filed by Ms. Indira Jaising, Senior
Advocate, before this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of
India seeking reforms in the system of designation of senior Advocates
by the Supreme Court of India. There were several other petitions
challenging the processes of designation followed by various High
Courts. The Gujarat High Court Advocates’ Association had filed an
Intervention Application challenging the validity of Section 16 of the
Advocates Act and Order IV Rule 2 of the Supreme Court Rules,
2013 on the ground that the classification of Advocates into two
distinct classes was not based on any reasonable and acceptable
basis and was violative of Articles 14 and 18 of the Constitution of
India. The issues were clubbed together and heard by a bench of
three judges of this Court.
3. Vide an elaborate judgement in the said case of Indira Jaising-1, a
coordinate Bench upheld the validity of Section 16 of the Advocates
Act and Order IV Rule 2 of the Supreme Court Rules. This Court
also exercised powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India
with a view to bringing about uniformity in approach in the process
of designation. The guidelines laid down by this Court are as follows:
“73. It is in the above backdrop that we proceed to
venture into the exercise and lay down the following
norms/guidelines which henceforth would govern the
1940 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
exercise of designation of Senior Advocates by the
Supreme Court and all High Courts in the country.
The norms/guidelines, in existence, shall be suitably
modified so as to be in accord with the present.
73.1. All matters relating to designation of Senior Advocates
in the Supreme Court of India and in all the High Courts of
the country shall be dealt with by a Permanent Committee
to be known as “Committee for Designation of Senior
Advocates”;
73.2. The Permanent Committee will be headed by the
Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India and consist of two
seniormost Judges of the Supreme Court of India [or High
Court(s), as may be]; the learned Attorney General for India
(Advocate General of the State in case of a High Court)
will be a Member of the Permanent Committee. The above
four Members of the Permanent Committee will nominate
another Member of the Bar to be the fifth Member of the
Permanent Committee;
73.3. The said Committee shall have a permanent
Secretariat, the composition of which will be decided by
the Chief Justice of India or the Chief Justices of the High
Courts, as may be, in consultation with the other Members
of the Permanent Committee;
73.4. All applications including written proposals by the
Hon’ble Judges will be submitted to the Secretariat. On
receipt of such applications or proposals from Hon’ble
Judges, the Secretariat will compile the relevant data
and information with regard to the reputation, conduct,
integrity of the advocate(s) concerned including his/her
participation in pro bono work; reported judgments in which
the advocate(s) concerned had appeared; the number
of such judgments for the last five years. The source(s)
from which information/data will be sought and collected
by the Secretariat will be as decided by the Permanent
Committee;
73.5. The Secretariat will publish the proposal of
designation of a particular advocate in the official website
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1941
Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Anr.
of the Court concerned inviting the suggestions/views of
other stakeholders in the proposed designation;
73.6. After the database in terms of the above
is compiled and all such information as may be
specifically directed by the Permanent Committee to
be obtained in respect of any particular candidate is
collected, the Secretariat shall put up the case before
the Permanent Committee for scrutiny;
73.7. The Permanent Committee will examine each
case in the light of the data provided by the Secretariat
of the Permanent Committee; interview the advocate
concerned; and make its overall assessment on the
basis of a point-based format indicated below:
Sl.
Matter Points
No.
1. Number of years of practise of the 20
applicant advocate from the date of points
enrolment. [10 points for 10-20 years
of practise; 20 points for practise
beyond 20 years]
2 Judgments (reported and unreported) 40
which indicate the legal formulations points
advanced by the advocate concerned
in the course of the proceedings of
the case; pro bono work done by
the advocate concerned; domain
expertise of the applicant advocate
in various branches of law, such as
Constitutional law, InterState Water
Disputes, Criminal law, Arbitration
law, Corporate law, Family law, Human
Rights, Public Interest Litigation,
International law, law relating to
women, etc.
3. Publications by the applicant advocate 15
points
4. Test of personality and suitability on 25
the basis of interview/interaction points
1942 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
73.8. All the names that are listed before the Permanent
Committee/cleared by the Permanent Committee will
go to the Full Court.
73.9. Voting by secret ballot will not normally be
resorted to by the Full Court except when unavoidable.
In the event of resort to secret ballot, decisions will be
carried by a majority of the Judges who have chosen
to exercise their preference/choice.
73.10. All cases that have not been favourably considered
by the Full Court may be reviewed/reconsidered after expiry
of a period of two years following the manner indicated
above as if the proposal is being considered afresh;
73.11. In the event a Senior Advocate is guilty of conduct
which according to the Full Court disentitles the Senior
Advocate concerned to continue to be worthy of the
designation, the Full Court may review its decision to
designate the person concerned and recall the same.”
(emphasis added)
4. Recognising that the guidelines may require reconsideration in the
future through suitable deletions/additions, in paragraph 74 of Indira
Jaising-1, it was held that: -
“74. We are not oblivious of the fact that the guidelines
enumerated above may not be exhaustive of the matter
and may require reconsideration by suitable additions/
deletions in the light of the experience to be gained over
a period of time. This is a course of action that we leave
open for consideration by this Court at such point of time
that the same becomes necessary.”
B. Indira Jaising – 2
5. In view of the aforesaid paragraph 74, several applications
seeking modification of the guidelines conceived in Indira
Jaising-1 were filed. Another coordinate Bench of this Court in
the case of Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India3 [for short,
3 (2023) 8 SCC 1
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1943
Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Anr.
“Indira Jaising-2”], reconsidered the guidelines and made the following
modifications:
a. The norms enumerated in Indira Jaising-1 required 10 points
to be given for all Advocates practicing between 10-20 years
and 20 points for all Advocates who had practiced beyond 20
years. It was argued that, as a result, an applicant with 11
years of practice shall obtain the same number of points as
an applicant with 19 years of practice. In order to iron out this
crease, this Court observed that under this category, one mark
shall be allocated for every year of practice between 10-20 years.
b. The procedure established in Indira Jaising-I laid down that after
evaluation of the permanent committee, voting by secret ballot
shall be resorted to only in unavoidable circumstances. However,
with time, it was noted that secret ballot voting had become
a frequent practice. Even when the permanent committee
had conducted a proper assessment, the final decision often
depended on the vote of the Full Court. Recognizing the validity
of several concerns raised regarding the use of secret ballot, this
Court reaffirmed that such a method must remain an exception,
and if it is employed, the reasons for doing so must be clearly
recorded by the Full Court.
c. The criterion listed at Serial No. 2 in the table under Paragraph
73.7 of Indira Jaising-I was considered the most significant,
as it encompassed reported and unreported judgments, pro
bono work, and an applicant’s expertise in various branches
of law. Consequently, the marks allocated to this criterion
were increased by 10 points, while the marks assigned for an
Advocate’s publications under Serial No. 3 of the said table
were reduced by 10 points.
6. While disposing of the applications for modifications, the coordinate
Bench reiterated that the process of improvement is a continuous
one and noted:
“51. We only hope that our endeavour to simplify some
aspects of the process results in the designation of more
meritorious candidates. The process of improvement is
a continuous one and we learn from every experience.
This is one more step in the fine-tuning of this exercise and
1944 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
we hope it achieves the purpose. The ultimate objective
is to provide better assistance to litigants and the courts.”
(emphasis added)
C. Order expressing doubts with Indira Jaising-1 and Indira
Jaising-2 and inviting attention of the Hon’ble Chief Justice
7. In Jitender @ Kalla, the Appellant had filed a Special Leave Petition
(for short, ‘SLP’) against an order of the High Court wherein the
High Court directed reconsideration of an application for premature
release of another convict. Though the Appellant was not a party to
the petition in which the impugned order was passed, strangely, he
challenged the said order. Further, while filing the SLP, the Appellant
did not disclose that he was directed to undergo imprisonment for
thirty years without remission. Therefore, this Court proceeded on the
footing that it was a case of a simple life sentence. This Court passed
an order dated 19th March 2024, issuing notice and exempting the
Appellant from surrendering. Thereafter, on an application being filed
by the 1st informant, this Court in its order dated 2nd September 2024
noted that material misrepresentations were made by suppressing
the fact that the Appellant was not a party to the proceedings before
the High Court and had been sentenced to a fixed term of 30 years.
Accordingly, this Court issued notice to the Advocate-on-Record to
explain his conduct.
8. Pursuant to the order, the concerned Advocate-on-Record filed an
affidavit dated 9th September 2024. In view of the contents of the
said affidavit, this Court on 30th September 2024 issued notice to
the Senior Advocate (who earlier also appeared as an Advocate for
the petitioner in Jitender @ Kalla before his designation on 14th
August, 2024) appearing in the matter to explain what was stated in
the affidavit of the Advocate-on-Record. This Court also recorded that
in at least half a dozen cases, blatant false statements were made in
the writ petitions and Special Leave Petitions that were filed seeking
relief of premature release. The concerned Senior Advocate filed his
affidavit. Subsequently, in its order dated 21st October, 2024, this
Court permitted the concerned Senior Advocate to withdraw and file
a better affidavit explaining his conduct. This Court also recorded that
the case raises issues of great concern, insofar as the responsibility
of Advocates-on-Record of this Court is concerned.
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1945
Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Anr.
9. Thereafter, on 30.11.2024, the concerned Senior Advocate filed an
affidavit tendering an unconditional apology. As recorded by this
Court in its judgment in Jitender @ Kalla, the concerned Senior
Advocate had previously made misrepresentations before this Court
as recorded in the common order dated 1st October 2024 passed
in Writ Petition (Crl.) No.631 of 2023, SLP (Crl.) @ D.No.4464 of
2024, SLP (Crl.) No.1775 of 2024, and Writ Petition (Crl.) No.195
of 2024. Further, misrepresentations made by the concerned Senior
Advocate were also recorded by this Court in order dated 29th
November 2024 passed in Writ Petition (Crl.) No.418 of 2024, and
orders dated 18th November 2024 and 3rd January, 2025 passed in
SLP (Crl.) Nos.1484-1496 of 2024.
10. Considering the conduct of the concerned Senior Advocate, a
contention was raised by Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor
General of India for reconsideration of earlier decisions of this Court
in Indira Jaising – I and Indira Jaising – II, and another decision
in the case of Amar Vivek Aggarwal v. High Court of Punjab &
Haryana and Ors4.
11. This Court in its judgment dated 20th February 2025 in Jitender
@ Kalla was of the view that the conduct of the Senior Advocate
reflected from the orders of this Court raised an important question of
whether the decisions of this Court in the case of Indira Jaising – I
and Indira Jaising – II, which lay down the guidelines for designation
of Senior Advocates by this Court and High Courts across the
country under the 1961 Act, need reconsideration. A question also
arose about whether the regime set up under the said decisions
has worked effectively. This Court was of the view that a serious
introspection was required to answer the question of whether the
Rules framed in terms of the said decisions have ensured that only
deserving Advocates are being designated.
12. This Court, accordingly, in paragraph 43 recorded its doubts and
concerns with the judgments of this Court in Indira Jaising – I and
Indira Jaising – II, and observed thus:
“43. We are recording our concerns based on submissions
made across the Bar. We again reiterate that we mean
4 (2022) 7 SCC 439
1946 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
no disrespect to the two binding decisions, and we are
recording our concerns only to enable the Hon’ble Chief
Justice of India, to decide whether the doubts expressed
by us need consideration by an appropriate larger Bench.
We flag our concerns as follows:
a) As can be seen from sub-section (2) of Section 16, prima
facie, the scheme of the provision is that no advocate can
seek designation, but the privilege of designation has to
be conferred by this Court or High Courts with his consent.
In paragraph 2 of Indira Jaising-II, this Court held that
designation as a senior advocate in India is a privilege
awarded as a mark of excellence to advocates who have
distinguished themselves and have made a significant
contribution to the development of the legal profession.
Therefore, the question that needs serious consideration
is whether the Court should permit applications to be
made for grant of designation, though the statute does
not contemplate that. If the legislature intended to allow
advocates to make applications for designation, sub-section
(2) of Section 16 would not have provided for this Court
or High Courts to take the consent of advocates before
designation.
b) Paragraph 73.7 provides for an advocate who has
applied for designation to appear before the Permanent
Committee for an interview/interaction to test his personality
and suitability. If an advocate, by virtue of his standing
at the Bar, his ability or special knowledge, deserves
designation as a senior advocate, the question which arises
is, by making such an advocate appear for an interview,
are we not compromising on the dignity of the advocate?
Are we not converting the process of designation into a
selection process?
c) It is doubtful whether by interviewing a candidate for
a few minutes, his personality or suitability can be really
tested. 25 points out of 100 are assigned for interview/
interaction, constituting 1/4th of the total points.
d) As recorded in paragraph 73.7, the duty of the
Permanent Committee is to make its overall assessment of
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1947
Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Anr.
the advocate concerned based on a points-based formula.
No other method of making an overall assessment has
been provided. No one can dispute that an advocate who
lacks integrity or does not possess a quality of fairness
is disentitled to designation. The reason is simple as
such an advocate cannot be held to have any standing
at the Bar. Moreover, there may be complaints pending
against an advocate with the disciplinary committee
of the Bar Councils. The question is how the cases of
such advocates can be considered by the Permanent
Committee. Even if members of the Permanent Committee
know that the applicant advocate lacks integrity, is not fair,
does not act as an officer of the Court, or against whom
complaints are pending for professional misconduct,
there is no scope to reduce the points on that count. If
such an advocate excels at the time of the interview or
otherwise renders excellent performance, he cannot be
given lesser marks because the candidate lacks integrity,
character or fairness. The reason is that 25 marks are
to be assigned not based on his performance before the
Court or his general reputation but on his performance
during the interview/interaction.
e) As noted earlier, prior to 31st January 1974, the criteria
in sub-section (2) of Section 16 was based on ability,
experience and standing at the Bar. That was substituted
with effect from 31st January 1974. After the amendment,
mere experience in terms of the number of years of practice
cannot be relevant. However, “experience in law” needs
consideration. Thus, mere experience in terms of number
of years of practice is not sufficient. Our concern is whether
10 or 20 points should be mechanically assigned only
based on experience or the number of years of practice.
It is worth considering whether only the number of years
put in practice has any nexus with ‘standing’ within the
meaning of Section 16(2). Further, it is pertinent to note that
Sr. No.1 in paragraph 73.7 merely discusses the number
of years of practice. The criteria adopted is not of actual
years of active practice. Therefore, an advocate who has
not been in active practice for 20 years or more will still
1948 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
get 20 marks because his registration as an advocate has
been for more than 20 years.
f) It is a usual experience that applicants submit many
judgments in which they have appeared and submit copies
of books and many articles written by them. The five
members of the Permanent Committee are expected to
go through every judgment submitted by the candidate to
assign 50 marks. To assign marks for publications, they are
expected to go through many articles and books. Whether
three senior judges, including the Chief Justice and two
senior advocates, should spend hours together for one
candidate is a question that needs serious consideration.
g) It is true that the overall assessment made by the
Permanent Committee in terms of points is placed
before the Full Court. The decision of the Full Court
may not necessarily be based on the points assigned by
the Permanent Committee. Still, the Full Court cannot
altogether ignore the assessment made by the Permanent
Committee. When the points-based assessment is not
free from defects, the question is whether it can form the
basis of assessment of an advocate.
h) Another issue is about the prohibition of secret ballot.
The Judges consider the applications in Full Court. The
question arises as to whether the Judges should openly
discuss the merits and demerits of those who appear before
them on the judicial side. Therefore, the issue of permitting
voting by secret ballot needs serious reconsideration.
i) There is one more serious area of concern. Whether
the guidelines give sufficient opportunity to the advocates
practising in our Trial Courts to get designated. There
cannot be any dispute that we have very eminent lawyers
practising exclusively before our Trial Courts who have
the ability, standing and experience in law. They are
outstanding public prosecutors and defence lawyers. In
most cases, their arguments may not always have legal
formulations, as reflected in the judgments in cases wherein
they appear. The submissions will necessarily be based
on facts. They will not have reported judgments to their
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1949
Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Anr.
credit. Such advocates do not stand to gain sufficient
points against Sr. No. 2 in paragraph 73.7. We are of the
view that designation under sub-section (2) of Section 16
cannot be the monopoly of the advocates practising in
higher Constitutional Courts like this Court and the High
Courts. Chapter 6, in part VI of the Constitution of India,
in a sense, gives the status of Constitutional Courts to our
trial and district courts.”
13. Based on the doubts and concerns expressed in paragraph 43 of
the judgment dated 20th February 2025, this Court, in paragraph 45,
observed thus:
“45. Considering what we have observed in paragraph
no. 43 above, we direct the Registrar (Judicial) to place
a copy of this judgment before Hon’ble the Chief Justice
of India. It is for the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, to
consider whether the issues flagged by us deserve to
be considered by a Bench of appropriate strength.”
D. Constitution of this Bench
14. The judgment of this Court in Jitender @ Kalla dated 20th February
2025 was placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India. Accordingly,
pursuant to the directions of the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, the
issues flagged in paragraph 43 of Jitender @ Kalla have been listed
before this Bench. This Bench, in its order dated 25th February
2025, issued notice to various parties. The relevant part of the said
order is as follows:
“2. Considering paragraphs 43 and 45 of the judgment
dated 20th February, 2025 passed in Criminal Appeal
No.865/20252, issue notice to the respondents in Writ
Petition (C) No.454/2015. As far as the Supreme Court
Advocates-on-Record Association is concerned, it is
represented today. Therefore, notice to the Supreme Court
Advocates-on-Record Association is not required to be
issued. Shri Tushar Mehta, the learned Solicitor General
states that he will intimate to the learned Attorney General
for India as well as the Union of India so that they will
be represented on the next date. Therefore, notice is not
required to be issued to the learned Attorney General
1950 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
and the Union of India as well. As far as the rest of the
respondents (except the High Courts) in Writ Petition (C)
No.454/2015 are concerned, notice be issued to them
through email informing them that the hearing will be on
19th March, 2025. A copy of the judgment dated 20th
February, 2025 in Criminal Appeal No.865/20252 as well
as this order shall be forwarded along with the notice
through e-email.”
E. Interlocutory Applications
15. With further experience being gained on the process for designating
Senior Advocates, several interlocutory applications were filed seeking
modification of the guidelines laid down by this Court and challenging
the designation process conducted by various High Courts. In this
judgment, we are focusing on the system of designation of Senior
Advocates and the concerns expressed about the guidelines laid
down by this Court. In addition to the issues flagged in paragraph 43
of Jitender @ Kalla, we will be addressing the issues raised in the
following applications:
a) IA 45959/2022 in IA No.145730-31/2021 in MA No.1502/2020
in WP (C) 454/2015
IA 145730-31 in MA 1502/2020 arises out of the designation
process conducted at the High Court of Patna, seeking
modification of the guidelines laid down in the cases of Indira
Jaising I and II to bring objectivity, transparency and fairness.
These applications were dismissed by the Order of the Registrar
dated 23rd December 2021 in terms of Order XV Rule 5 of
the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, observing that the sum and
substance of these IAs was in the nature of seeking review of
the judgment in Indira Jaising II. IA 45959/2022 is an appeal
against the Registrar’s order dated 23rd December 2021.
b) IA No. 55879/2023 in MA No.1502/2020 in WP (C) 454/2015
These applications pray for the reconsideration and modification
of guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in light of the
observations made in Paragraph 74 of Indira Jaising I. The
applicant has made several suggestions, including giving special
privilege to Advocates with 30 years’ experience, deleting the
criteria for publications, deleting the marking on the basis of
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1951
Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Anr.
an interview, conducting voting by secret ballot, designating
Advocates without requiring submission of applications and
designating mofussil Advocates as well.
c) IA No. 36111/2023 in MA No. 262/2023 in WP (C) 454/2015
These applications are filed by the Union of India seeking
modification of the judgment of this Court in the case of Indira
Jaising I, contending that allotment of 40% of weightage to
publications and interview is highly subjective and need
not be an effective parameter to judge the suitability of a
candidate. Directions are sought to the effect that the applicant’s
performance shall be evaluated in a Full Court meeting by
secret ballot method.
SUBMISSIONS
A. Submissions by the Learned Attorney General for India
16. We have heard the learned Attorney General for India. He submitted
that the convention before Indira Jaising – I was to ask an Advocate
for his consent before designating him as a Senior Advocate. However,
due to the large number of Advocates joining the Bar, he submitted
that the earlier convention of approaching Advocates instead of
inviting applications would not be feasible. He further submitted that
designation as a Senior Advocate is a milestone in the career of an
Advocate, and asking an Advocate for consent should not be the only
way of conferring designation. He acknowledged that the existing
system has flaws but submitted that by inviting applications, the
system has opened the doors for an aspirational class of lawyers that
he terms as the ‘middle class’ to apply for designation. He submitted
that there are expanding disciplines within the legal profession, and
the number of talented Advocates continues to grow. He submitted
that the system of inviting applications holds relevance for such
aspiring Advocates, and it is necessary to promote them to grow in
the profession. He submitted that this Court has opened the system
to such Advocates by permitting the invitation of applications.
17. Regarding the current system of designation, the learned Attorney
General submitted that he is personally uncomfortable with the idea
of an interview/interaction and finds it embarrassing, as all applicants
are his peers, whom he knows personally. If the interview is to be
1952 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
retained, the learned Attorney General would submit that personal
questions regarding how the applicant is as a person should be
asked instead of legal questions. He submitted that the factors of
the marking system can change over the years. He submitted that
Section 16 of the Advocates Act is merely a signpost which gives
a broad roadmap for designation and that this Court would have to
use its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to fill
gaps and improve the system as and when needed. He submitted
that the inclusion of Advocates in the Permanent Committee is not
restricted by Section 16 of the Advocates Act and has been made by
this Court using powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
18. The learned Attorney General has also shared with this Court his
experiences while being part of the Permanent Committee for the
designation of Senior Advocates by the Supreme Court. The learned
Attorney General frankly stated that it was not possible for him to
peruse the entire material submitted by applicants, such as books,
articles, reported judgments, etc., as it was very voluminous. He
admitted that it is not possible for the Permanent Committee to peruse
all the material. He submitted that the assignment of marks by the
Permanent Committee of the Supreme Court was in the nature of
recommendations, after which there was nothing else for the Full
Court to add, except to confirm these recommendations. The learned
Attorney General was of the view that if the Permanent Committee
does its assessment properly, voting by secret ballot would become
unnecessary. He submitted that the only scope of evaluation left for
the Full Court can be regarding issues of ethics and integrity.
B. Submissions by the Learned Solicitor General of India
19. The learned Solicitor General appeared on behalf of the Secretary
General of the Supreme Court of India, as also in his capacity as
the Solicitor General of India. Appearing on behalf of the Secretary
General of the Supreme Court of India, the learned counsel took us
through Para 74 of the judgement in Indira Jaising-1. He submitted
that in the light of the experience gained by the Supreme Court of
India, since the designation procedure prescribed in Indira Jaising-1
was conceived, several predicaments have arisen, which show that
the system has not yielded the results it intended to achieve. He
submitted that the assessment conducted by a permanent committee,
as proposed by Indira Jaising-1, should be discontinued. In support
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1953
Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Anr.
of this submission, he relied on Sub-Section (2) Section 16 of the
Advocates Act, 1961 which reads thus:
“Section 16. Senior and other advocates.
(1)….
(2) An advocate may, with his consent, be designated as
senior advocate if the Supreme Court or a High Court
is of opinion that by virtue of his ability, 1[standing at
the Bar or special knowledge or experience in law] he is
deserving of such distinction”
20. He submitted that Section 16 of the Advocates Act does not envisage
splitting the Full Court into smaller bodies. Instead, it provides for
conferment of distinction by a collective body based on criteria
laid down in the provision. The procedure laid down under Indira
Jaising-1, however, deviates from the statute by allowing individual
assessment by a Permanent Committee comprising of the Chief
Justice and two senior-most judges of the respective court; the
learned Attorney General for India (or Advocate General for the State
in case of a High Court); and a fifth member from the bar appointed
by the above four members. He further argued that Section 16
vests the Supreme Court and High Courts with discretionary power
to designate Senior Advocates, thereby excluding any external
participation. Consequently, the involvement of members of the bar,
including the Attorney General for India or the Advocate General for
the respective state, is not only unjustified but also contrary to the
intent of the provision, which entrusts this responsibility solely to the
Full Court. Additionally, he submitted that the procedure prescribed
by Indira Jaising-1 restricts the use of voting by secret ballot only in
unavoidable circumstances. He argued that the stature of individuals
forming part of the Permanent Committee may discourage or deter
other judges from expressing their views freely. To ensure that the
collective view of the Full Court is expressed without any undue
influence, he urged that voting by secret ballot be reinstated as a
mandatory practice.
21. The learned Solicitor General raised serious objections to the
marks system postulated by Indira Jaising-1. He contended that
Section 16 of the Advocates Act provides for designation based
on three predominant criteria: an Advocate’s standing at the Bar,
special knowledge, or experience in law. However, he submitted
1954 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
that the marks system, as presently structured, fails to account for
an Advocate’s standing at the Bar, which, in his view, can only be
assessed through their performance in court and integrity.
22. He pointed out that the marks system provides for awarding up to
25 marks based on the interview or interaction, but does not include
any provision to deduct marks for professional misconduct. As a
result, an Advocate who performs well in the interview and scores
well in other categories may still be designated, even if he or she
has a reputation for misleading the court or has been held guilty of
contempt. He contended that this omission undermines the integrity
of the selection process and fails to ensure that only deserving
candidates are designated. The learned counsel further submitted that
the interview process prescribed under the current framework is an
inadequate measure for assessing the suitability and personality of a
candidate. He contended that a brief interaction of 15 or 30 minutes
cannot be a definitive test of an Advocate’s competence, integrity,
or standing at the Bar. An Advocate’s capabilities, he argued, must
be evaluated primarily on the basis of their courtroom performance
over time, rather than a short and subjective interview.
23. He further submitted that only the Court before which an Advocate
regularly practices should have the authority to confer designation.
He pointed out that the procedure prescribed under Indira Jaising-1
provides for the award of marks based on various criteria; however,
it leaves the determination of the minimum threshold for designation
at the discretion of the Full Court. As a result, the absence of a
uniform standard has led to inconsistencies in the designation
process across different High Courts. He contended that this lack of
uniformity allows lawyers to submit applications before multiple High
Courts in an attempt to secure designation, thereby undermining the
principle that an Advocate should be designated by the court where
he primarily practices.
24. Appearing in his capacity as the Solicitor General of India, learned
counsel contended that the objective behind the system of designation,
namely, the prevention of canvassing/lobbying, has not been fulfilled.
He submitted that the inclusion of members of the Bar in the selection
process, coupled with the establishment of a Permanent Committee
responsible for evaluating applications and assigning marks, has, in
fact, facilitated canvassing/lobbying rather than curbing it.
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1955
Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Anr.
C. Submissions on behalf of the High Court of Delhi
25. The learned advocate appearing for the High Court of Delhi largely
supported the submissions made by the learned Solicitor General.
He submitted that designation must be by conferment and not by
application. He submitted that there should be representations from
the Bar and that a proposal for designation can be initiated by the
Chief Justice, two sitting judges, or any two Senior Advocates who
have been designated for more than 5 years. He submitted that
such proposals should be placed before the Full Court, which would
vote on them through the method of secret ballots. He submitted
that such proposals should be considered twice a year, or at the
very least once a year.
D. Submissions on behalf of the High Court of Karnataka
26. The learned advocate for the High Court of Karnataka stated
that a committee had been constituted to invite suggestions. The
learned advocate submitted that the suggestions received were that
interviews should be discontinued. However, if the committee that
is considering proposals for designation is not acquainted with a
particular applicant for the reason that he has not practiced before
that court because he practices in a different region or only before
Trial Courts, there should be a provision for calling upon such an
applicant for an interaction. He submitted that the criteria of integrity
should be included by reducing marks for other criteria. Further, he
submitted that the number of designations must be decided based
on the number of practicing Advocates to ensure that designation
remains a distinction and does not become a title that is too widely
distributed. The learned advocate submitted that the object of
designation is to mentor junior members of the Bar, to assist the
Court in cases in an unbiased manner, and to project to the Bar
that honesty, integrity, erudition and learning matters. He submitted
that a designation is not an honour to be conferred on an Advocate
based on several years of practice. Instead, he has to be a role
model to the younger members of the Bar. His honesty and integrity,
learning, erudition, skilful advocacy and oral arguments, well-reasoned
presentation in court, apart from standing at the Bar, must be taken
into account. He further submitted that active practice should be an
essential requirement for designation. Mere theoretical knowledge is
not sufficient. Moreover, the designation is a process by which the
1956 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
courts get the assistance of designated senior counsels, who will
not be a mere mouthpiece of the parties, but will assist the Court in
coming to a just conclusion irrespective of the fact that they represent
one party to the lis. Lastly, he submitted that an active practitioner
would not have time to publish articles and the present criteria of
awarding marks for it should be done away with.
E. Response on behalf of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh
27. We have also received a representation from the High Court of
Madhya Pradesh. The representation calls for more transparency
in the selection process by publishing the evaluation criteria,
applications, and reasons for selection or rejection in the public
domain. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh also suggests that
regular and timely designation must take place by conducting the
process at fixed intervals. There must also be involvement of the Bar
Council and independent legal experts in the Selection Committee,
and peer review from fellow Advocates and views from all judges
may be collected. Their submission is also to reduce subjectivity and
bias in evaluations by reducing reliance on interviews and having
a structured scoring system. They also suggest promoting diversity
and equal opportunities for women, first-generation lawyers, lawyers
from diverse regions, including District Courts, and representation in
different fields of law, not just traditional litigation. The High Court has
also represented that secret ballot must be restricted. There must also
be consideration of specialization-based designations, recognizing
pro bono work and legal scholarship, introducing review mechanism
for rejected candidates, and standardized rules for all High Courts.
F. Submissions on behalf of the High Court of Punjab and
Haryana
28. Shri P.S. Patwalia, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana, submitted that his submissions are in
tune with the submissions made by the learned Solicitor General. He
submitted that the requirement of an interview for Advocates seeking
designation as Senior Advocates is unnecessary and reduces the
importance of courtroom performances. Accordingly, he submitted
that the evaluation should be based on courtroom performance rather
than an interview process. The learned Senior Advocate submitted
that in accordance with Section 16 of the Advocates Act, no rigid
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1957
Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Anr.
criteria for awarding marks should be prescribed for designation,
and the matter should be left to the discretion of the judges. He
submitted that the current evaluation process requires significant time
and effort, involving the review of numerous judgments, books, and
articles authored by applicants. An overemphasis on such materials
has detracted from the importance of courtroom performance and is
testing an applicant based on his performance outside the courtroom
in libraries. The learned senior advocate submitted that judges,
particularly those who have been elevated from the Bar, possess fair
knowledge of their former colleagues’ professional capabilities and
see their performance on a daily basis. He submitted that no criteria
where marks are awarded can accurately capture the assessment
of judges that takes place on a regular basis based on courtroom
performance. He submitted that designation should be extended to
those members of the Bar who exclusively practice before the Trial
Courts as well and those judges from the Bar would know the quality
of their advocacy. Even judges appointed from the judicial services
would be able to determine and know of the advocacy of Advocates
practicing before Trial Courts.
G. Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner-in-Person in
WP (C) 454/2015
29. We have heard Ms. Indira Jaising appearing as Petitioner-in-Person.
Ms. Jaising raised a preliminary objection regarding the jurisdiction of
this Court to hear the reference. She submitted that this Court cannot
review the judgments in Indira Jaising – I and Indira Jaising – II
without an application being made for review. She submitted that
IA No. 45959 of 2022 in IA No. 145730-31 of 2021 in MA 1502 of
2020 in WP (C) 454 of 2015 filed by advocates of the Patna High
Court for modification of the judgment was not served upon her.
When this Court called for records of service on the second day of
hearing, Ms. Jaising admitted that she was incorrectly informed and
that the application was duly served on her advocate-on-record. She
submitted that the IA was in the nature of a modification, which is
different from a review of the judgment.
30. Accordingly, she submitted that this Court could only draw jurisdiction
from paragraph 74 of Indira Jaising-I and make suitable additions/
deletions. She submitted that for review of both the judgments,
this Court would require a review petition to be placed before it
1958 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
in accordance with Article 137 of the Constitution of India read
with Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. Further, any
reconsideration beyond the remit of paragraph 74 would have to be
referred to a larger bench.
31. On the merits of the case, Ms. Jaising opened her submissions by
supporting the system introduced by Indira Jaising – I and Indira
Jaising – II. Ms. Jaising contended that the designation process
must be objective, fair, and transparent, and no power should remain
unguided. Since the exercise of designation is an administrative
function of the Supreme Court, it is subject to the scrutiny of Article
14 of the Constitution of India. Clear guidelines are required to
prevent arbitrary decision-making.
32. On the marking system, Ms. Jaising admitted that there is no
provision for awarding lower marks for lack of integrity. She
argued that the existing marking system is not exhaustive. She
acknowledged that the merit of a candidate should not be solely
determined by academic qualifications but should be assessed
based on multiple factors such as reputation, conduct, and integrity.
She submitted that there are two methods of ascertaining integrity
– through official records and by gathering information from
stakeholders. Regarding the first method of ascertaining integrity,
she emphasized that financial records, criminal records, or any other
records of disciplinary action can be checked. The Court can also
direct the applicant to file an affidavit calling upon him to disclose
certain details such as FIRs registered against him, convictions/
penalties imposed, arrests or detentions made, etc. She submitted
that this Court, as well as some High Courts, already invite this
information at the time of making an application. In respect of the
second form of ascertaining integrity, she submitted that consultation
with relevant stakeholders is the only way to ascertain integrity or
reputation at the Bar.
33. Ms. Jaising admitted that in the Writ Petition (C) No. 454 of 2015, she
had not prayed for any interview system to be included in the process
of designation and that interviews are susceptible to manipulation.
However, she supported retaining the interview system and submitted
that the weightage of marks given to an interview can be reduced and
marking on integrity be explicitly included. She suggested renaming
the process from ‘interview’ to ‘interaction’.
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1959
Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Anr.
34. Ms. Jaising submitted that the marks given to each criterion can be
modified. For instance, she suggested that contributions made to
public life/service, whether the candidate has an academic bent of
mind, etc., should also be considered. She proposed that examination
of audited bank accounts, pro bono work, library resources, the
number of juniors mentored, and the ability to critique judicial decisions
should be considered as criteria.
35. Ms. Jaising submitted that the originality of arguments reflected in
court judgments must be considered. However, Ms. Jaising fairly
admitted that the quality of submissions and originality of arguments
cannot be ascertained, as judgments do not fully reflect who made
arguments, what arguments were made, and judges may also
sometimes add on to the arguments made while finally adjudicating
the issue at hand. For this, Ms. Jaising submitted that supplying written
submissions and the practice of recording the name of the Advocate
making submissions in the judgment must be made mandatory. She
contended that the quality of advocacy, rather than case outcomes,
should be the decisive factor in designation.
36. Ms. Jaising advocated for retaining publications as a factor in
assessment. She submitted that for evaluating the judgment
and academic work submitted by the candidates, the Permanent
Committee can take assistance from experts from the field of
academics in law or of the Centre for Research and Planning
functioning under the aegis of this Court.
37. On the issue of how to determine experience at the Bar as some
Advocates may have enrolled decades back but not be in active
practice, Ms. Jaising submitted that it is not practically possible to
calculate years of active/actual practice. She submitted that any
system may not be able to take into account contingencies faced
by Advocates, and the date of enrolment should continue to be the
criterion.
38. On the issue of domain expertise, she acknowledged that specialization
exists, with some Advocates practicing exclusively in tax law or before
specialized tribunals like the National Green Tribunal. She submitted
that such Advocates should be assessed based on their judgments
and contributions within their specific domains.
39. Ms. Jaising also advocated for declaring cutoff marks and declaring
the same after results, or even before the interview to determine where
1960 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
one stands. With such a system, she submitted that any deduction
in interview marks on integrity would make such an applicant fall
below the cutoff.
40. On the issue of secret ballot, Ms. Jaising admitted that whether secret
ballot should be resorted to or not should be left to the Full Court
to decide. She submitted that there should not be any general rule
governing the use of secret ballots, and it can vary from designation
to designation.
41. Ms. Jaising admitted that the current system is not perfect and
there is room for improvement, such as prohibiting canvassing by
Advocates, prohibiting written recommendations being made by a
judge or multiple judges for a particular candidate, publishing the
application made and marks secured by an applicant, disclosure of
probity and information relating to criminal/disciplinary proceedings
through affidavits, deducting interview marks for questionable
integrity, and taking help of external parties to evaluate judgments
and academic work.
H. Submissions on behalf of the National Lawyers Campaign
42. The learned counsel, Shri Mathew J. Nedumpara, appearing on
behalf of the National Lawyers Campaign, submitted that Section 16
of the Advocates Act vests discretionary power in the High Courts
and the Supreme Court to confer designations. Consequently, he
contended that the practice of inviting applications from lawyers is
unsustainable. The learned counsel emphasized that many lawyers
may consider it beneath their dignity to apply for designation and
undergo an interview process. Moreover, he argued that since the
Parliament has expressly provided for discretionary designation,
the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to frame guidelines for the
designation of Senior Advocates on the basis of applications. He
further submitted that the creation of a Permanent Committee leads
to excessive canvassing and results in the designation of only the
kith and kin of its members.
I. Submissions of Applicants in IA 45959 of 2022 in 145730-31
of 2021 in MA 1502 Of 2020 in WP (C) 454 of 2015
43. Learned Senior Counsel for the intervenors supported the submissions
of the learned Solicitor General. He relied on the judgement of
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1961
Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Anr.
this Court in the case of E.S. Reddy v. Chief Secretary, Govt. of
Andhra Pradesh (1987) 3 SCC 258, wherein this Court observed
that designation under Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act is an
honour and privilege conferred by the Full Court on Advocates of
standing and experience. He submitted that Section 16 mandates
obtaining the Advocate’s consent for designation, reinforcing that it is
a recognition of merit. He further argued that the procedure in Indira
Jaising-1 improperly confers an inherent right to be considered for
designation without any mechanism to address grievances, hence
the entire system of applications is contrary to the statutory scheme.
J. Submissions of Respondent no. 2 (complainant) in Jitender
@ Kalla v. State of NCT Delhi (Crl.) Appeal No. 865 of 2025
44. Learned counsel Shri Pranav Sachdeva, appearing for Respondent No.
2, i.e., the complainant in Criminal Appeal No. 865 of 2025, supported
the application system introduced in Indira Jaising-1. He refuted
the contention that the application procedure, including an interview,
demeans Advocates seeking a distinction. He noted that several
high-level appointments, such as the Central Vigilance Commissioner,
Lokpal, and Central Information Commissioner, are made through a
similar application process. He submitted that the application system
promotes transparency, benefitting litigants and the public at large.
K. Submission of Supreme Court Advocates-On-Record
Association
45. Learned counsel Mr. Vipin Nair, appearing for the Supreme Court
Advocates-on-Record Association, submitted that the marks system,
including the existing criteria introduced in Indira Jaising-1 and 2
should be retained. However, he suggested that the marks may be
adjusted to address concerns that have emerged from the experience
of the Supreme Court and High Courts.
L. Submissions of the Supreme Court Arguing Counsel
Association (unregistered)
46. Learned counsel Mr. Anilendra Pande, appearing for the Supreme
Court Arguing Counsel Association (unregistered), submitted that the
designation system should be all-inclusive, ensuring consideration
for Advocates from rural backgrounds, backward classes, and
marginalized communities.
1962 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
CONSIDERATION
A. Scheme of Section 16 of the Advocates Act
47. Section 16 of the Advocates Act provides for the designation of
Advocates as Senior Advocates. Section 16 reads thus:
“16. Senior and other advocates.—(1) There shall be
two classes of advocates, namely, Senior Advocates and
other advocates.
(2) An advocate may, with his consent, be designated as
Senior Advocate if the Supreme Court or a High Court
is of opinion that by virtue of his ability, standing at
the Bar or special knowledge or experience in law he
is deserving of such distinction.
(3) Senior Advocates shall, in the matter of their practice,
be subject to such restrictions as the Bar Council of India
may, in the interests of the legal profession, prescribe.
(4) An advocate of the Supreme Court who was a Senior
Advocate of that Court immediately before the appointed
day shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to
be a Senior Advocate:
Provided that where any such Senior Advocate makes an
application before the 31st December, 1965, to the Bar
Council maintaining the roll in which his name has been
entered that he does not desire to continue as a Senior
Advocate, the Bar Council may grant the application and
the roll shall be altered accordingly.”
(emphasis added)
48. By the Act 60 of 1973, Sub-section (2) was amended. The words
starting from ‘standing’ and ending with ‘law’ were incorporated by
the Act 60 of 1973 with effect from 31st January, 1974, in place of
the words ‘experience and standing at the Bar’.
49. We may note here that in the statement of objects and reasons of
the Advocates Act, it was mentioned that the main feature of the Act
was the integration of the Bar into a single class of legal practitioners
known as Advocates. Perhaps, the need was felt to do so by the
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1963
Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Anr.
Legislature as prior to the commencement of the Advocates Act,
there were different classes of legal practitioners such as Supreme
Court Advocates, High Court Advocates/Pleaders, Advocates of
High Court (OS), District Court Pleaders, Vakils, Mukhtars, Revenue
Agents etc. Though the object was to make integration of the Bar
into a single class, Sub-section (1) of Section 16 created two classes
of Advocates, namely, Senior Advocates and other Advocates. The
power to designate an Advocate as Senior Advocate is vested with
this Court and the High Courts.
50. There are restrictions imposed by this Court as well as the High
Courts on the designated Senior Advocates. For example, clause (b)
of Rule 2 of Order (IV) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 imposes
restrictions on Senior Advocates. One such restriction is that a Senior
Advocate shall not file a vakalatnama or act in any Court or Tribunal
in India. Another restriction is that he shall not appear without an
Advocate-on-Record (for short ‘AOR’) in the Court or without a junior
in any other Court or Tribunal in India. Another important restriction
is that a Senior Advocate cannot accept directly from a client any
brief or instructions to appear in any Court or Tribunal in India.
We find that similar restrictions have been imposed on the Senior
Advocates by various High Courts. Under Sub-section (3) of Section
16, the Bar Council of India has the power to impose restrictions on
the Senior Advocates in the matter of their practice in the interest of
the legal profession. However, there is nothing placed on record to
show that the Bar Council of India has framed any Rules in terms
of Sub-section (3) of Section 16.
51. Sub-section (2) of Section 16 lays down the qualifications for
designation as a Senior Advocate. Obviously, the standard of conduct
of Senior Advocates in all respects must be much higher than the
standard of other Advocates. Sub-section (2) refers to ability, standing
at the Bar or special knowledge or experience in law. In our view,
ability and standing at the Bar are two important qualifications while
designating Advocates as Senior Advocates by Full Court.
(i) Ability
52. When the provision talks about ability, it will include very sound
knowledge of law and especially the branches of law in which
the Advocate is practicing. The ability will also include, apart from
1964 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
sound knowledge of law, skills of advocacy, which are required to
effectively conduct a case. It will include mastery over the art of
cross-examination in case of Advocates practicing on the original
sides of the High Court or Trial and District/Sessions Courts. Writing
articles and commentaries on law will be part of ability. Capacity to
rationally critique judicial decisions will be a facet of ability.
(ii) Standing at the Bar
53. As far as the standing at the Bar is concerned, an Advocate can be
said to have standing at the Bar provided he has certain qualities
and a reputation which is built over a span of time. Standing at the
Bar is not defined or understood with physical number of years an
Advocate puts in. But the standing at the Bar is a mixture of several
qualities of a professional viz: (i) integrity (ii) respect (iii) confidence
(iv) dependability (v) honesty (vi) communication skills (vii) confidence
and (viii) commitment to administration of justice and rule of law.
Some of the qualities which give an Advocate a standing at the Bar
are as follows:
(a) He/she is always fair while conducting cases before the Courts;
(b) His/her behaviour with the Judges and other members of the
Bar is respectful;
(c) He/she maintains decorum while conducting cases before the
Court;
(d) He/she always acts first as an officer of the Court and, thereafter,
a mouthpiece of his/her client;
(e) He/she follows the highest standards of professional etiquette
and ethics;
(f) He/she acts as a mentor to the junior Advocates;
(g) He/she does pro bono work; and
(h) He/she carries respect in the legal fraternity.
54. We must note here that honesty and integrity are the qualities
which every member of the Bar, whether senior or otherwise, must
possess. This is something basic. Merely because an Advocate is
a good human being, this by itself does not qualify the Advocate
for designation.
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1965
Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Anr.
(iii) Special Knowledge of Law
55. Sub-section (2) of Section 16 refers to ‘special knowledge of law’. If an
Advocate has special knowledge in a particular branch of law, that is
also a qualification for designation. There are specialized branches of
law such as the Arbitration, Insolvency and Bankruptcy, Company Law,
Intellectual Property Law, Tax Laws etc. The designation as a Senior
Advocate cannot remain the monopoly of the Advocates practicing in
High Courts and this Court. If the designations are conferred only to
the Advocates practicing in High Courts and this Court, Section 16(2)
will be exposed to the vice of arbitrariness which is prohibited under
Article 14 of the Constitution. The Advocates practicing before Trial and
District Courts or specialized Tribunals can possess qualification laid
down in Section 16(2). The Advocates practicing in Trial/District Courts
may have extraordinary skills in drafting pleadings and conducting
cross-examination. Considering the very object of the Advocates Act,
we must note that an Advocate practicing in Trial and District Courts
cannot be treated as inferior to an Advocate who practices in this Court
or High Courts. Even such an Advocate can have ability, standing
at the Bar, special knowledge or experience in law for designating
as Senior Advocate. The qualities of ability, standing at the Bar, and
special knowledge and experience in law are present in the Advocates
practicing in Trial and District Courts as much as of the Advocates
practicing in the High Courts and the Supreme Court.
(B) The reasons recorded for exercise of Jurisdiction under
Article 142 of the Constitution in Indira Jaising-1
56. The occasion for considering the issue in the case of Indira Jaising-1
arose as the petitioner therein, a Senior Advocate filed a writ petition
in this Court inter alia seeking a writ or direction declaring that the
system of designation of Senior Advocates by the recently introduced
method of vote is arbitrary and contrary to the notions of diversity
violating Articles 14, 15 and 21 and therefore, it is unconstitutional
and null and void. As can be seen from paragraphs 23 and 24 of the
decision in the said case, this Court found that there was no uniform
criterion or yardstick adopted by the High Courts. In paragraph 23,
this Court has noted the practice prevailing in this Court regarding
the designation of Advocates as Senior Advocates. This Court,
thereafter, referred to the practice followed in different High Courts.
In paragraph 24, this Court held thus:
1966 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
“24. Insofar as the High Courts of the country are
concerned, it appears that there is no uniform criteria or
yardstick. Age; income; length of practise; requirement
of practise in the High Court in which designation is
sought or in a court subordinate to such High Court,
appear to be the broad parameters which different High
Courts have adopted either by incorporation of all such
parameters or some or few of them. The position would
be clear from the following resume which indicates the
practice prevailing in different High Courts of the country.”
56.1 In paragraph 58 of the said decision, this Court observed
that an endeavour should be to lay down norms/guidelines/
parameters to make the exercise conform to the three
requirements of the statute, namely, the ability of the Advocate
concerned, his/her standing and his/her special knowledge
or experience in law. In paragraphs 69 and 70, this Court
observed thus:
“69. The guidelines governing the exercise of
designation by the Supreme Court have already
been noticed so also the guidelines in force in the
various High Courts. Though steps have been taken
to bring in some objective parameters, we are of the
view that the same must be more comprehensively
considered by this Court to ensure conformity of the
actions/decisions taken under Section 16 of the Act
with the requirement of constitutional necessities,
particularly, in the domain of a fair, transparent and
reasonable exercise of a statutory dispensation on
which touchstone alone the exercise of designation
under Section 16 of the Act can be justified. We
have also noticed the fact that until the enactment
of the Advocates Act, 1961 and the Supreme
Court Rules, 1966 the option to be designated as
a Senior Advocate or not was left to the advocate
concerned, with the Full Court having no role to
play in this regard. We have also noticed that in
other jurisdictions spread across the Globe, where
the practice continues to be in vogue in one form
or the other, participation in the decision-making
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1967
Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Anr.
process of other stakeholders has been introduced
in the light of experience gained.
70. We are, therefore, of the view that the framework
that we would be introducing by the present order
to regulate the system of designation of Senior
Advocates must provide representation to the
community of advocates though in a limited manner.
That apart, we are also of the view that time
has come when uniform parameters/guidelines
should govern the exercise of designation of
Senior Advocates by all courts of the country
including the Supreme Court. The sole yardstick
by which we propose to introduce a set of
guidelines to govern the matter is the need for
maximum objectivity in the process so as to
ensure that it is only and only the most deserving
and the very best who would be bestowed the
honour and dignity. The credentials of every
advocate who seeks to be designated as a
Senior Advocate or whom the Full Court suo
motu decides to confer the honour must be
subject to an utmost strict process of scrutiny
leaving no scope for any doubt or dissatisfaction
in the matter.”
(emphasis added)
56.2 In paragraph 73 of the said decision, this Court held thus:
“73. It is in the above backdrop that we proceed to
venture into the exercise and lay down the following
norms/guidelines which henceforth would govern the
exercise of designation of Senior Advocates by the
Supreme Court and all High Courts in the country.
The norms/guidelines, in existence, shall be suitably
modified so as to be in accord with the present.”
57. It is obvious that an endeavour was made by this Court to bring about
uniformity in the norms/guidelines followed by this Court and High
Courts in the designation of Advocates as Senior Advocates. This
exercise was undertaken, obviously, invoking the jurisdiction of this
1968 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India as a measure to
ensure transparency in the process. This step was also necessitated
due to absence of Statutory Rules framed under the Advocates Act.
It was an experiment made by this Court to bring about uniformity in
approach. An effort was made to make the process more objective.
However, this Court was not oblivious of the fact that the guidelines
may require changes from time to time. Therefore, in paragraph 74,
this Court observed thus:
“74. We are not oblivious of the fact that the
guidelines enumerated above may not be exhaustive
of the matter and may require reconsideration
by suitable additions/deletions in the light of the
experience to be gained over a period of time.
This is a course of action that we leave open for
consideration by this Court at such point of time that
the same becomes necessary.”
(emphasis added)
57.1 Thus, this Court has given enough indication that what was
done under Indira Jaising-1 was not final. The decision itself
noted that the need to reconsider the decision may arise in
future.
58. Indira Jaising-1 was decided on 12th October, 2017. An endeavour
was made by this Court to have a relook at the guidelines laid down
in Indira Jaising-1 while deciding Indira Jaising-2. From the decision
in the case of Indira Jaising-2, it appears that there was a debate
before the Court mainly on the following issues:
(a) Voting by secret ballot;
(b) Cut-off marks;
(c) The points assigned for publications; and
(d) The personal interview
59. This Court made the following modifications in Indira Jaising-2:
(i) Voting by secret ballot will remain by way of exception. In case
it is resorted to, the reasons for the same should be recorded;
(ii) Points for publication were reduced from 15 to 5; and
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1969
Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Anr.
(iii) The points allocated for reportable and non-reportable
judgments, pro bono work, and domain expertise under various
branches of law were increased from 40 to 50.
59.1 Paragraphs 32 to 38 of Indira Jaising-2 decision are relevant
which read thus:
“32. The first aspect to be noticed under this head
is that of reported and unreported judgments. We
deem it fit to clarify that it is not orders (not laying
down any proposition of law) but judgments that
have to be considered. We say so as judgments
ordinarily deal with significant and contested legal
issues.
33. Here, we ought to also consider the role played
by the advocate in the proceedings. In recent times,
and particularly in the Supreme Court, the number
of advocates present for a matter are very high.
However, that is not ipso facto reflective of the
assistance that they are providing to the Court. A
matter may be argued by a counsel who may be
assisted by others, including an Advocate-on-Record.
Thus, an assessment would have to be carried out in
enquiring into the role played by the advocate in the
matter they have appeared in with their role specified
by them in their application. Merely looking into the
number of appearances would not be enough.
34. We believe that this would also take care of any
perceived disadvantages arising due to the larger
number of appearances by Government Counsel,
as compared to counsel who are engaged in private
work.
35. One suggestion that we are inclined to accept
is that while analysing the role of lawyers, the
quality of the synopses filed in Court ought to be
considered. Synopses can be a useful indicator for
assessing the assistance rendered by an advocate
to the Court. Candidates should thus be permitted
to submit five of their best synopses for evaluation
with their applications.
1970 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
36. Now turning to another aspect under this
head, it may be noticed that many specialised
tribunals have been set up, and several advocates
have concentrated their practice before such
tribunals. The specialised tribunals are the National
Company Law Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal for
Electricity, Appellate Tribunal under the Prevention
of Money Laundering Act, 2002, Telecom Disputes
Settlement and Appellate Tribunal, Consumer
Dispute Redressal Commission, etc. This has
led to the opening up of various specialisations,
including but not limited to arbitration, telecom,
electricity, energy, competition, insolvency, and
white-collar crime.
37. Often appeals from those tribunals lie to this
Court and, thus, such advocates also appear
before this Court, although the frequency of their
appearances may be less. Specialised lawyers with
domain expertise should be permitted to concentrate
on their fields and not be deprived of the opportunity
of being designated as Senior Advocates. Thus,
in the case of such advocates, a concession is
required to be given with regards to the number of
appearances. This category of advocates and their
expertise is also essential for the advancement of
all specialised fields of law.
38. We also believe that due consideration
should be given in the interest of diversity,
particularly with respect to gender and first-
generation lawyers. This would encourage
meritorious advocates who will come into the
field knowing that there is scope to rise to the
top. The profession has seen a paradigm shift
over a period of time, particularly with the
advent of newer law schools such as National
Law Universities. The legal profession is no
longer considered as a family profession.
Instead, there are newer entrants from
all parts of the country and with different
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1971
Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Anr.
backgrounds. Such newcomers must be
encouraged.”
(emphasis added)
59.2 In paragraph 51 of Indira Jaising-2, this Court held that the
process of improvement is continuous, as we learn from every
experience.
60. This Court in Indira Jaising-1 embarked upon the exercise of laying
down uniform standard/practice/ procedure/criteria for designation
of Advocates as Senior Advocates by this Court and High Courts.
In essence, it was an experiment made by this Court, perhaps, only
with one object. It was to ensure that every deserving Advocate
who satisfies the criteria of Sub-section (2) of Section 16 of the Act
gets due consideration resulting in designation as Senior Advocate.
Considering the object of the exercise undertaken by this Court, the
directions issued in exercise of power under Article 142 were never
intended to be final or understood as substitute to Statutory Rules
under the Advocates Act. Paragraph 74 of Indira Jaising-1 and
paragraph 51 of Indira Jaising-2 clearly contemplate that. This Court
will have to make a course correction as expressed in paragraph 74
of Indira Jaising-1 again in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article
142 of the Constitution. The submissions made by the learned
Solicitor General of India, appearing for the Secretary General of
this Court as well as in his personal capacity, High Courts of Delhi,
Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh and Punjab and Haryana, suggest that
perhaps the directions issued in Indira Jaising-1 have not worked
effectively to achieve the desired objectives.
(C) 100 Point based Overall Assessment – The basis of Decision
Making
61. The entire argument revolves around the point-based overall
assessment of the Advocates for designation as Senior Advocates.
The scheme of Indira Jaising-1 stipulates putting in place a
Permanent Committee in this Court and the High Courts. The Chief
Justice and the two senior-most Judges will be part of the Permanent
Committee along with the Attorney General for India or Advocate
General of the State, as the case may be, and another member
of the Bar nominated by the other four members of the Permanent
Committee. Apart from the Permanent Committee, Permanent
1972 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Secretariats were ordered to be established for receiving applications
for designation and processing the applications.
62. The Permanent Committee was entrusted with the task of
interviewing the applicants and assigning points out of 100 as
specified in tabular form in paragraph 73.7 of Indira Jaising-1. The
scheme of the directions is that a point-based overall assessment
is made by the Permanent Committee. All the names placed before
the Permanent Committee, along with the point-based assessment
made by the Committee, are placed before the Full Court to take
a final decision on designation of an individual Advocate as Senior
Advocate. Thus, the scheme is that the Full Court considers the
point-based overall assessment made by the Permanent Committee
of each applicant who applies for designation and takes a decision.
Though the Full Court may not be bound by the point-based
assessment made by the Permanent Committee, the assessment
made by the Permanent Committee certainly carries weight as
it is made by three senior-most Judges and two distinguished
members of the Bar. Though the scheme of Indira Jaising 1
and 2 does not confer a power on the Permanent Committee to
recommend names, in practical terms, the exercise done by the
Permanent Committee of assigning points out of 100 is treated
as a recommendation of certain applicants.
(i) Participation of the Members of the Bar in the process of
100 Points based Overall Assessment
63. Sub-section (2) of Section 16 confers prerogative on this Court and
High Courts to designate an Advocate as a Senior Advocate. On the
administrative side, this Court and the High Courts act in accordance
with the decision of the Full Court, consisting of all Hon’ble Judges.
By a resolution of the Full Court, in a given case, the decision-making
can be delegated to a Committee of Judges. But we wonder how
members of the Bar can be a part of the decision-making process
under Sub-section (2) of Section 16 by conferring on them the power
to assign points to each applicant. From the Statutory perspective,
the question troubling us is about the participation of the Advocates
in the actual decision-making contrary to Sub-section (2) of Section
16. The observation is made in the contexts of the Statute and
not on their desirability or competence to be the Members of the
Permanent Committee.
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1973
Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Anr.
64. The two senior members of the Bar who are part of the Permanent
Committee have to interact with the applicants who have applied for
designation. The applicants will be their colleagues in the profession.
Normally, the two members of the Bar who are members of the
Permanent Committee are expected to be of very high standing.
Nevertheless, all the applicants have access to them. The learned
Attorney General with experience at his command expressed that
he is uncomfortable with the idea of interviews. The reason is that
he found it embarrassing to ask questions as the applicants were
his peers. In any event, the involvement of members of the Bar in
the actual decision-making process by the Full Court in terms of
Sub-section (2) of Section 16 cannot be supported by law. In short,
he has rightly raised an issue of propriety. From what we have seen
during the seven and a half years after Indira Jaising-1, perhaps,
the involvement of the members of the Bar in the process calls for
serious reconsideration. We hasten to add that this is no reflection
on the capabilities of the Senior Advocates who have acted as
members of the Permanent Committees. The Courts seeking views
of senior members of the Bar on some of the applicants is completely
different from allowing senior members of the Bar to become a part
of the decision-making process of the Permanent Committee. Sub-
section (2) of Section 16 may not be averse to allowing consultation
by the High Court/this Court with the senior members of the Bar.
However, the provision does not allow the participation of the Bar
members in the actual decision-making process. The effects of such
participation have been brought to our notice across the Bar. Suffice
it to say that the participation of two senior members of the Bar will
need reconsideration.
(ii) Duration of Practice
65. We have noted that in Sub-section (2) of Section 16, as it existed
prior to 31st January, 1974, the criteria was ability, experience and
standing at the Bar. After the amendment with effect from 31st January,
1974, the criterion of ability and standing at the Bar remain. What is
added is special knowledge or experience in law. The intention of the
Legislature, as reflected in the amendment, is that mere experience
in the profession cannot be the criterion. Therefore, the experience
simpliciter is done away with and replaced by “experience in law”.
In the point-based format, 20 points have been provided for practice
1974 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
beyond 20 years and 10 or more points for 10 to 20 years. There is
no doubt that no Advocate can be said to have standing contemplated
by Sub-section (2) of Section 16, unless he has spent a sufficiently
long time in the profession.
66. There can be many members of the Bar who have a long presence in
the profession. There are many members of the Bar who continue to
practice for a long time, though their appearances are minimal. Only
the number of years spent in practice cannot be a major criterion
for designation by any stretch of imagination. Let us test with an
example i.e. a member of the Bar, who has not performed or is not
up to the mark, can get 20 points out of 100 only on the ground
that he or she has continued to be a member of the Bar for more
than 20 years. Therefore, in our view, assigning points on the basis
of experience in terms of the number of years is something which
will require reconsideration as it does not serve the object sought to
be achieved by this Court. Moreover, the length of practice cannot
be a rational criterion. On the contrary, it will help those who do
not deserve designation as they will get points on the basis of the
number of years in practice.
(iii) Interview or Interaction
67. Now, we come to the interview or interaction of the Permanent
Committee with the Advocates applying for designation. The question
is whether an Advocate, who by virtue of his ability and standing at
the Bar deserves designation, can be subjected to an interview by
the Permanent Committee. When we posed this query to Ms. Indira
Jaising, Senior Advocate, she fairly stated that while she argued Indira
Jaising-1, she never suggested that there should be a requirement
of an interview or interaction with the applicants.
68. The designation of an Advocate as a Senior Advocate is different
from making an appointment to the post. The question is whether it
is fair to assess personality and suitability only on the basis of a brief
interview for a few minutes, and whether the Permanent Committee
can assess personality and suitability by assigning points out of 25,
which again constitute 1/4th of the total points. Interaction or interview
for a few minutes by any standard is not sufficient to assess the
personality and suitability of the concerned Advocate. Such brief
interactions can at best give an outer view of the applicant. The
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1975
Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Anr.
points out of 25 have to be assigned by assessing personality and
suitability only on the basis of the applicant’s performance in the
interview. Hence, if someone is impressive in an interview, he or
she can get very good marks even if his or her general reputation
is not up to the mark.
69. After Indira Jaising-1, this Court and High Courts have conducted a
number of exercises for designating Advocates as Senior Advocates.
In many such processes, there were more than 100 applicants. It
may be appropriate, on this background, to ask a difficult question
to ourselves whether the Permanent Committees devoted sufficient
time to each applicant for assessing personality and suitability. We
do not think there will be any serious disagreement on the obvious
answer.
70. It is not out of place to observe that subjecting an Advocate having
standing at the Bar to interview by three senior-most Judges and two
senior members of the Bar violates the dignity of the noble profession.
(iv) Reported and Unreported Judgments, Pro Bono Work and
Domain Expertise/Experience
71. The Advocates who apply for designation submit a number of
reported and unreported judgments indicating the legal formulations
advanced by them in the course of proceedings before the Court.
In Indira Jaising-2, this Court expressed that even the written
submissions or synopses filed by the Advocates should be considered
for assigning points out of 50 points. The applicants are submitting
a large number of Judgments and copies of written submissions/
synopses running into hundreds of pages. It is very difficult to
assess whether the submissions recorded in the Judgments are
made by that particular Advocate, even if his name appears in the
Judgment, unless the judgment specifically mentions that a particular
submission was made by the named Advocate. Similarly, written
submissions filed may not be a product of an individual effort, but
may be a collective effort by a team of Advocates. It is not possible
to accept that the Permanent Committee is in a position to come
to the conclusion that the submissions reflected in the Judgments
and written submissions/synopsis are the submissions made by
the applicant concerned, so as to assign points out of 50, which
constitute ½ of the total points.
1976 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
72. Three senior-most Judges of this Court or High Courts have
onerous duties to discharge not only on the judicial side, but, on the
administrative side as well. They have to devote hours together to
administrative work. If they are required to assign points out of 50
on the basis of Judgments and written submissions, we wonder how
many working hours will be required to go through the documents
submitted by individual Advocates. We made a query to the learned
Attorney General for India whether he could find time to go through so
many judgments as well as publications submitted by the applicants.
In his usual fairness, he was candid enough to tell the Court that
the exercise was very difficult and tiring or may not be to the extent
needed. We cannot say that the members of the Committee are able
to go through every document. Moreover, this makes the process
very subjective. A suggestion was made that this exercise can be
outsourced to the Registrars/Centre for Research and Planning
(CRP). We do not think that this important work can be outsourced
to any entity or group of individuals.
(v) Publications
73. If an Advocate has authored articles or a thesis on complex legal
issues or has published books on legal subjects to his credit, depending
upon the quality of writing, it adds to the standing of the Advocate.
However, it will be unjust to give weightage to such work done by the
Advocate by assigning points out of 5. Writing articles or books is not
an essential criterion for designation. It is an additional consideration.
74. The experience of the last seven and a half years shows that it may
not be rationally or objectively possible to assess calibre, standing
at the Bar, and the experience in law of the Advocates who apply
for designation on the basis of a point-based format. That has not
achieved the desired objective. There is another important aspect
which is relevant. No specific points have been assigned for the
character, honesty and integrity. The point-based assessment, as
can be seen from the earlier discussion, can hardly be objective,
and it tends to be highly subjective.
(D) Reconsideration in terms of Paragraph 74 of Indira Jaising-1
and paragraph 51 of Indira Jaising-2
75. We have already held in paragraph 60 that considering the object
of the exercise undertaken by this Court, the directions issued in
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1977
Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Anr.
Indira Jaising-1 and 2 were never intended to be final. Indira
Jaising-1 specifically records need for reconsiderations by suitable
additions/deletions in the light of the experience to be gained over
a period of time. Even Indira Jaising-2 reiterates this position and
holds that the process of improvement is continuous, based on
our experience. What we have held in earlier paragraphs shows
that the system of 100 point-based assessment has not achieved
the desired objectives. Moreover, the experience shows that the
points-based assessment is not flawless. We have realized that
with experience. Therefore, paragraph 73.7 deserves deletion in
exercise of powers reserved in paragraph 74 of Indira Jaising-1
read with paragraph 51 in Indira Jaising-2. When we do this, it will
not amount to review or recall of the decisions. After finding that
the point-based assessment is not workable, we will be failing in
our duty if we fail to do what we are expected to do in the light of
paragraph 74 of Indira Jaising-1.
(E) Judges Recommending Candidates
76. On plain reading of Sub-section (2) of Section 16, the Legislature
never contemplated an Advocate making an application seeking
designation. The scheme of Sub-section (2) of Section 16 indicates
that designation has to be conferred by the Supreme Court or the
High Courts. The scheme of Sub-section (2) of Section 16 indicates
that an individual Judge of the Supreme Court or the High Court, as
the case may be, cannot recommend any Advocate for designation
as the decision is a collective decision of the Full Court. Even if an
Advocate deserving of a designation does not apply for designation,
on the basis of the discussion in the house, the Full Court can always
recommend his/her designation, subject to his/her consent. For that
purpose, the recommendation in writing of an individual Judge is
not warranted.
(F) Whether Applications for Designations are warranted
77. Obviously, this Court or the High Court cannot designate any Advocate
as a Senior Advocate without his consent. The strength of the Bar is
ever-increasing. Therefore, it would practically not be possible to seek
the consent of a large number of deserving Advocates. Therefore, the
practice of making a formal application can be continued. An Act of
making application will amount to consent of the Advocate for being
1978 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
considered for designation. Act of making such applications may
not necessarily amount to soliciting the designation. The practice
of allowing applications to be made has practical advantages.
The educational qualifications, experience in law, field of practice,
income, pro bono work, work of mentoring juniors, articles and books,
writing publications, etc., are relevant in the process of designation.
Instead of the Court’s Registry calling for these details, it becomes
more convenient if the Advocates furnish the details along with their
applications. We, therefore, find no difficulty in continuing the practice
of Advocates applying for designation. In view of what we have held
earlier, a deserving Advocate who does not apply can be always be
designated after obtaining his consent.
(G) Diversity and Inclusivity in the Process
78. Ms. Indira Jaising is absolutely correct when she candidly submitted
that the designation cannot be the monopoly of the selected few. She
submitted that diversity is of great deal of importance. All members of
the Bar who belong to different classes must get equal opportunity in
the matter of designation. It is important to encourage first-generation
Advocates. She is right in submitting that the process of designation
must be objectively fair and guided. For that purpose, there is a need
to have at least one exercise of designation conducted every year.
79. When we talk of diversity, we must ensure that the High Courts
evolve a mechanism by which the members of the Bar practicing
in our Trial and District Judiciary and before specialised Tribunals
are considered for designation as their role is no inferior to the role
played by Advocates practicing before this Court and High Courts.
This is also an essential part of diversity. The High Courts can always
call for the views of the Principal District Judges or the Heads of
the Tribunals on such applicants. Moreover, when the cases of the
Advocates practicing in District Courts are considered, the views of
the Guardian/Administrative Judges of the concerned District are
always available.
(H) Income and Minimum Practice
80. Another question is whether a number of years of practice or
minimum income should be a criterion. It all depends on the situation
in every State. If a condition of minimum income is introduced, the
process will cease to be inclusive. Income is one of the several
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1979
Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Anr.
factors to be considered. The requirement of a minimum practice
of 10 years should be retained as the standing at the Bar can be
assessed only if the Advocate has practiced for a reasonably long
time.
(I) Secret Ballot
81. Another contentious issue is whether there should be a secret
ballot in the Full House. In Full Court meetings, there is always
an endeavour made to bring about consensus in decision-making
on all subjects. But, where consensus cannot be arrived at
notwithstanding best efforts, the decision-making must be in a
democratic manner by majority vote. There cannot be any hard
and fast rule laid down that the secret ballot should never be
resorted to. It all depends on circumstances. Therefore, the question
whether there should be a secret ballot must be left to the wisdom
of the Full Court. But the decision-making on designation, as far
as possible, should be by consensus. If that is not possible, the
decision-making must be by a democratic process and shall be
governed by a majority of votes.
(J) Practice of Senior Advocates using a Special Gown
82. Another issue raised by Ms. Indira Jaising was that the practice of
designated Senior Advocates using different type of gowns has no
basis in the Advocates Act. Therefore, according to her, this practice
deserves to be discontinued. It is for the High Courts to take a call
on this aspect while framing rules.
(K) Need to frame proper Rules
83. Even in the absence of a specific provision under the Advocates Act,
this Court and High Courts, being the Constitutional Courts, have a
power to frame rules. The power of this Court can be traced to Article
145(1)(a). The High Courts can exercise power under Article 227(2)
(b). It is necessary that proper Rules must be framed dealing with
the entire process of designating Advocates as Senior Advocates.
The object of the rules must be to bring objectivity, transparency and
fair play in the entire process. The rule making power in this behalf
can also be traced to Sub-section (1) of Section 34 of the Advocates
Act which reads thus:
1980 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
“Section 34: Power of High Courts to make rules.
The High Court may make rules laying down the
conditions subject to which an advocate shall be permitted
to practise in the High Court and the courts subordinate
thereto.”
84. The grassroots level situation in each High Court differs. High
Courts have their own traditions. Therefore, it should be best left
to the High Courts to frame rules in the light of the principles laid
down in this decision. While framing rules, this Court and the High
Courts must undertake a detailed process of consultation with the
Advocate General, senior members of the Bar, office bearers of the
Bar Associations and the members of the State Bar Council. Even
the members of the Bar owe a duty to ensure that only deserving
Advocates get designation, and therefore, their suggestions must be
given importance in the process of framing rules. The Rules must
take into consideration several contingencies. There are cases where
after the request for designation is rejected by one High Court, the
candidate approaches this Court or another High Court. The Rules
can provide for prohibition on applying for a certain period after
rejection of earlier application. The Rules can provide for the form
of application, required documents etc.
(L) Permanent Secretariat
85. We, however, are of the view that the Permanent Secretariat, as
proposed in Indira Jaising-1, must continue to exist for processing
applications, as the collection of data is very important for the correct
decision-making process. While framing Rules, a proper framework
can be provided for the working of the Permanent Secretariat and
its duties.
(M) Need to Periodically Review the Procedure
86. The view which we have taken will be again subject to what is
observed in paragraph 74 of the decision in the case of Indira
Jaising-1 and paragraph 51 of the decision in the case of Indira
Jaising-2. Looking to the very nature of the process of designation,
it is very difficult to arrive at a perfect system. We learn from our
experience and the mistakes committed in the past. Therefore, the
endeavour of all stakeholders should be to keep on improving the
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1981
Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Anr.
system, so that we may ensure that not a single deserving Advocate
is left out of the process of designation and not a single undeserving
person is designated.
CONCLUSIONS
87. We, therefore, pass following orders:
(i) We direct that the directions contained in paragraph 73.7 of
Indira Jaising-1 as amended by Indira Jaising-2 shall not
be implemented;
(ii) It will be appropriate if all the High Courts frame Rules in terms
of what is held in this decision within a period of 4 months from
today by amending or substituting the existing Rules. The Rules
shall be made keeping in view the following guidelines:
(a) The decision to confer designation shall be of the Full
Court of the High Courts or this Court;
(b) The applications of all candidates found to be eligible by
the Permanent Secretariat along with relevant documents
submitted by the applicants shall be placed before the
Full House. An endeavour can always be made to arrive
at consensus. However, if a consensus on designation of
Advocates is not arrived at, the decision-making must be
by a democratic method of voting. Whether in a given case
there should be a secret ballot, is a decision which can
be best left to the High Courts to take a call considering
facts and circumstances of the given case;
(c) Minimum qualification of 10 years of practice fixed by
Indira Jaising-1 needs no reconsideration;
(d) The practice of Advocates making applications for grant of
designation can continue as the act of making application
can be treated as consent of the Advocates concerned for
designation. Additionally, the Full Court may consider and
confer designation dehors an application in a deserving
case;
(e) In the scheme of Section 16(2), there is no scope
for individual Judges of this Court or High Courts to
recommend candidate for designation; and
1982 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
(f) At least one exercise of designation should be undertaken
every calendar year.
(iii) The processes already initiated on the basis of decisions of
this Court in the case of Indira Jaising-1 and Indira Jaising-2
shall continue to be governed by the said decisions. However,
new process shall not be initiated and new applications shall
not be considered unless there is a proper regime of Rules
framed by the High Courts;
(iv) It is obvious that even this Court will have to undertake the
exercise of amending the Rules/Guidelines in the light of this
decision; and
(v) Every endeavour shall be made to improve the regime/system
of designation by periodically reviewing the same by this Court
and the respective High Courts.
88. Before we part with the judgment, we must compliment each and every
member of the Bar who has assisted us. We must acknowledge the
huge contribution of Ms. Indira Jaising, Senior Advocate in the entire
process. She must be given full credit for starting a constructive debate
on the issue. We hope and trust that her endeavour of bringing about
objectivity and transparency in the process of designation succeeds.
89. The issues referred are answered accordingly.
90. IA No. 45959 of 2022 in IA Dy Nos. 145730-31 of 2021 in MA No. 1502
of 2020 in WP (C) No. 454 of 2015 is allowed. IA Dy Nos. 145730-31
of 2021, IA No. 55879 of 2023 in MA No.1502 of 2020 and IA No.
36111 of 2023 in MA No. 262 of 2023 are allowed and disposed of
in terms of the above judgment.
Result of the case: Reference answered.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Harshit Anand, Hony. Associate Editor
(Verified by: Kanu Agrawal, Adv.)
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Senior Advocate"Sign in to search