Supreme Court of India
MS. INDIRA JAISINGversusTHROUGH SECRETARY GENERAL AND ORS.
- Citation
- 2017 INSC 1031
- Decided
- 12 October 2017
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- RANJAN GOGOI
Holding
The designation of Senior Advocates under Section 16 of the Advocates Act is constitutionally valid provided it is based on reasonable, objective parameters of ability, standing at the Bar and special knowledge, and the Court may prescribe uniform guidelines to ensure transparency.
Summary
The petitioners challenged the constitutionality of the practice of designating Senior Advocates under Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961 and Order IV Rule 2 of the Supreme Court Rules, alleging violations of Articles 14, 15, 18 and 21 of the Constitution. The Court examined whether the power to confer the designation is arbitrary or must be exercised on objective criteria of ability, standing at the Bar and special knowledge. It held that the power is not unfettered but must be exercised with due satisfaction based on reasonable parameters, and that the designation is a permissible distinction, not a prohibited title. Consequently, the Court upheld the validity of the statutory scheme but laid down uniform guidelines, including the creation of a Permanent Committee, a point‑based assessment, and a transparent process. The writ petitions were dismissed and the matter was disposed of with the new guidelines.
Issues considered
- The constitutionality of Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961 and Order IV Rule 2 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 on the ground of violation of Articles 14, 15, 18 and 21.
- Whether the power to designate Senior Advocates is arbitrary or must be exercised on objective criteria.
- The need for uniform guidelines and transparency in the designation process.
Legislation cited
- Advocates Act, 1961s. 16
- Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 15, s. Article 18, s. Article 21, s. Article 217
- Supreme Court Rules, 2013s. Order IV Rule 2
Subjects
Senior AdvocateDesignationAdvocates ActConstitutional validityArticle 14TransparencyJudicial guidelinesObjective criteriaLegal profession
Judgment
[2017] 10 S.C.R. 478
A MS. INDIRA JAISING
v.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY
GENERAL AND ORS.
B (Writ Petition (C) No. 454 of2015)
OCTOBER 12.2017
[RANJAN GOGOi, R. F. NARIMAN
AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.)
c Advocates:
Designation of Senior Advocate~ - Writ petition seeking
declaration that the practice of designation of Senior Advocates
arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 15, 18 and :!I, tl111s,
unconstitutional and null and void - Held: Practice of classifving
D people as senior advocates is constitutional - Exercise of the power
vested in the Supreme Court and the High Courts to designate an
Advocate as a Senior Advocate is circumscribed by the requirement
of due sati;,faction that the concerned advocore .fit/fills the three
conditions stipulated u/s. 16, ability; standing at the bar; and/or
special knowledge or experience in law that the person seeking
E designation has acquired - Thus, the practice of classifying
advocates as Senior Advocates conferred by s.16 is constitutionally
permissible, so long as the bas1:s of the classification is founded on
reasonable parameters - Criteria prescribed would go to determine
the standing of the Advocate at the bar, is the o~ject behind the
classification - Such an object would enhance the value of the
F
legal system that Advocates represent - However, there is a need
for more transparency and unifonn parameters/guidelines - Process
to ensure that there is strict scrutiny of credentials and the most
deserving and best is bestowed with the designation - Jn view thereof,
norms/guidelines, which henceforth would govern the exercise of
G designation of Senior Advocates by the Supreme Court and all High
Courts, laid down - Advocates Act, 1961 - s. 16 - Constitution of
India -Arts 14, 15 and 21- Supreme Court Rules, 2013 - Or. IV r. 2.
Appointment /designation as senior advocates - Un(form
norms/Guidelines laid down for Supreme Court and all High Courts
H to designate lawyers as senior advocates - Modification of the
478
MS. INDIRA JAlSlNG v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 479
THROUGH SECRETARY GENERAL
existing guidelines - Held: There should be Permanent Committee A
for designation of senior advocates, with members specified and a
Permanent Secretariat - All applications/proposals by the Hon 'ble
judges would be submitted to the Secretariat, and the Secretariat
would process the same - Proposed names would be put up on
website to invite suggestions and views - Thereafter, compiled data B
base would be put up before Permanent Committee for scrutiny -
Permanent Committee would interview the concerned advocate and
make its overall assessment on the basis of point based format -
Names cleared by Permanent Committee would go to Full Court -
Voting by secret ballot would not be resorted to by the Full Court
except when unavoidable - Cases not favourably considered by C
the Full Court may be reviewed/reconsidered after two years - In
case any senior advocate not found worthy of his designation, Full
Court may review/recall its decision - Said guidelines not exhaustive
and Supreme Court can change them when required.
Appointment/designation as senior counsel - Process I criteria D
for - Prevailing practice in Supreme Court, different High Courts
in India as also in various countries - Elucidated.
Advocates Act, 1961:
s. 16 - Procedure for designation as Senior Advocates -
·Subjective. and objective criteria - Held: Both s. 16(2) and Order E
IV rule 2 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 use expression "is of
opinion" and "in their opinion" respectively which controls the
power of the Full Court to designate an Advocate as a Senior
Advocate - It is a subjective exercise to be per.formed by the Full
Court - However, the opinion, though su~jective, has to be founded . F
on objective materials - There has to be a full ai1d effective
consideration of the criteria prescribed-ability; standing at the Bar,
special knowledge or experience in law - Though the Supreme Court
and various High Courts have taken steps to bring in some objective
parameters, the same must be fair, transparent and reasonable
exercise of a statutory dispensation on which touchstone the exercise G
of designation u/s.16 can be justified.
s. 16 - Designation of Senior Advocates - Amendment of the
guidelines framed by the High Court of Meghalaya whereby the
requirement of 05 years 'practice in any Court within thejurisdicpon
the High Court of Meghalaya done away with and an Advocate H
480 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] I0 S.C.R.
A practicing in any court of the country made eligible: and that any
Senior Advocate of any High Court in the country could sponsor
any advocate in any court in India to be designated as a Senior
Advocate by the High Court of Meghalaya - Held: Power of
designating any person as a Senior Advocate is always vested in
the Full Court either of the Supreme Court or of any High Court -
B
Jn extraordinary situation the Full Court of a High Court may depart
from the usual practice unless the norms expressly prohibit such a
course of action - if the power is always there in the Full Court,
there is no reason why an express conferment of the same by the
Rules/Guidelines is necessary - instances like these bring the system
c of designation of Senior Advocates into disrepute - High Court
given liberty to reconsider the changes brought in by the
amendments.
s.16 - Procedure for designation as Senior Advocates -
Norms/guidelines prevailing in different High Courts - Varying
D periods of practice and different slabs of income prescribed as
minimum conditions of eligibility - Held: !/merit and ability is to be
the determining fi1ctor, in addition to standing in the Bar and
expertise in any specialized field of/aw, there s/1011/d be no insistence
on any minimum income as a condition of eligibility - As regards
age, norm of 10 years practice at the Bar would be appropriate
E instead of minimum age.
Disposing of the matters, the Court
HELD: 1.1 So far as the practice prevailing in the Supreme
Court of India for designation of senior advocates is concerned,
F from the Affidavits filed on behalf of the Registry of the Supreme
Court it seems that the essence of the practice in vogue is that
20 years of combined standing as an Advocate or a District and
Sessions Judge or a Judicial Member of any Tribunal (qualification
for eligibility for appointment in such Tribunal should not be less
than what is prescribed for appointment as a District Judge),
G entitles an Advocate to apply for being designated as a Senior
Advocate by the Supreme Court. A relaxation to the said
requirement i.e. length of practice was recommended in the year
1996 by an Administrative Committee of three Hon'ble ,Judges
which also appears to have been acted upon in specific cases. All
applications received are circufated to the Hon'ble Chief Justice
H
MS. INDIRA JAISING v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 481
THROUGH SECRETARY GENERAL
and all Hon'ble Judges. Only those cases which have been A
approved by a minimum of five Hon'blc Judges arc put up before
the Full Court. If the Hon'blc Chief Justice or any Hon'ble Judge
of the Supreme C~urt is of the view that a particular Advocate
deserves the distinction of being designated as a Senior Advocate,
the Hon'blc Chief Justice or the Hon'ble Judge, as may be, can B
also recommend the name of such Advocate for being considered
for designation. All such names would also be circulated amongst
the Judges in the same manner and undergo the same process
until the short-listed names reach the Full Court. In the Full Court,
decisions are taken on the basis of voting by secret ballot and by
the rule of majority. [Para 17] [508-A-E] - C
1.2 Insofar as the High Courts of the country are concerned,
it appears that there is no uniform criteria or yardstick. Age;
income; length of practice; requirement of practice 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 D
different High Courts have adopted either by incorporation of all
such parameters or some or few of them. [Para 18] [508-E-F]
l.3 The exercise of the power vested in the Supreme Court
and the High Courts to designate an Advocate as a Senior
Advocate is circumscribed by the requirement of due satisfaction E
that the concerned advocate fulfills the three conditions stipulated
under Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961, i.e., (1) ability; (2)
standing at the bar; and/or (3) special knowledge or experience
in law that the person seeking designation has acquired. It is not
an uncontrolled, unguided, uncanalised power though in a given
case its exercise may partake such a character. However, the F
possibility of misuse cannot be a ground for holding a provision
of the Statute to be constitutionally fragile. The consequences
spelt out by the intervener, namely, (1) indulgence perceived to
be shown by the Courts to Senior Advocates; (2) the effect of
designation on the litigant public on account of high fees charged; G
(3) its baneful effect on the junior members of the bar; and (4)
the element of anti-competitiveness, etc. are untoward
consequences occasioned by human failures. Possible
consequences arising from a wrong/improper exercise of power
cannot be a ground to invalidate the provisions of Section 16 of
the Act. Recognition of qualities of merit and ability demonstrated H
482 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 10 S.C.R.
A by in-depth knowledge of intricate questions of law; fairness in
court proceedings consistent with the duties of a counsel as an
officer of the Court and contributions in assisting the Court to
charter the right course of action in any given case, all of which
would go to determine the standing of the Advocate at the bar is
the object behind the classification. Such an object would enhance
B
the value of the legal system that Advocates represent. So long
as the basis of the classification is founded on reasonable
parameters which can be introduced by way of uniform guidelines/
norms to be laid down by this Court, it cannot be seen how the
power of designation conferred by Section 16 of the Act can be
c said to be constitutionally impermissible. [Para 23) [521-E-H;
522-A-C)
1.4 Similar is the position with regard to the challenge
founded on the alleged violation of Article 18 of the Constitution
of India. The designation 'Senior Advocate' is hardly a title. It is
D a distinction; a recognition. Use of the said designation (i.e. Senior
Advocate), per se, would not be legally impermissible inasmuch
as in other vocations also use of similar expressions as in the
case of a doctor referred to as a 'Consultant' which has its own
implications in the medical world. There are doctors who are
referred to as 'Senior Consultants' or as a 'Senior Surgeon'. Such
E expressions are instances of recognition of the talent and special
qualities of a person which has been proved and tested over a
period of time. In fact, even in bureaucratic circles such suffixes
and prefixes arc also not uncommon. Therefore, the designation
of 'Advocates' as 'Senior Advocates' as provided for in Section
. F 16 of the Act would pass the test of constitutionality and the
endeavour should be to lay down norms/guidelines/parameters
to make the exercise conform to the three requirements of the
Statute already enumerated namely, (1) ability of the advocate
concerned; (2) his/her standing at the bar; and (3) his/her special
knowledge or experience in law. [Para 24] [524-D-G]
G
1.5 Both Section 16(2) of the Act and Order IV rule 2 of
the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 are significant in use of the
expression "is of opinion" and "in their opinion" respectively
which controls the power of the Full Court to designate an
Advocate as a Senior Advocate. It is a subjective exercise that is
H to be performed by the Full Court inasmuch as a person affected
MS. INDIRA JAISING v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA . 483
THROUGH SECRETARY GENERAL
•
by the refusal of such designation is not heard; nor arc reasons A
recorded either for conferring the designation or refusing the
same. But the opinion, though subjective, has to be founded on
objective materials. There has to be a full and effective
consideration of the criteria prescribed, namely, ability; standing
at the Bar, special knowledge or experience in law in the light of B
materials which necessarily has to be ascertainable and verifiable
facts. [Para 31] [524-F-G]
1.6 Though steps have been taken to bring in some
objective parameters, 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 C
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. Until the enactment of the
Advocates Act, 1961 and the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 the D
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. 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 process of other
stakeholders has been introduced in the light of experience E
gained. Therefore, the framework that would be introduced 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, time has come .
when uniform parameters/guidelines should govern the exercise F
of designation of Senior Advocates by all Courts of the country
including the Supreme Court. The sole yardstick by which there
is a proposal 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 arid the very best who
would be bestowed the honour and dignity. The credentials of G
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. [Para 33)
[526-E-G; 527-A-C] H
484 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 10 S.C.R.
A 2.1 The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petitions
(Civil) Nos. 33 and 819 of 2016 (filed by the High Court of
Meghalaya Bar Association, Shillong) is with regard to the
amendment of the guidelines framed by the High Court of
Meghalaya governing the issue of designation of Senior
B Advocates. The grievance specifically is directed against the
amendment dated 31st March, 2015 by which the requirement of
05 years' practice in any Court within the jurisdiction the High
Court of Meghalaya has been done away with and an Advocate
practicing in any court of the country has been made eligible.
There is a further amendment made on 13th January, 2016 by
C which any Senior Advocate of any High Court in the country can
sponsor any advocate in any court in India to be designated as a
Senior Advocate by the High Court of Meghalaya. Even at first
blush, the guidelines have been couched, by the amendments
thereto, in too wide terms for acceptance. [Paras 26, 27) [523-B-
D DJ
2.2 The power of designating any person as a Senior
Advocate is always vested in the Full Court either of the Supreme
Court or of any High Court. If an extraordinary situation arises
requiring the Full Court of a High Court to depart from the usual
practice of designating an advocate who has practiced in that High
E Court or in a court subordinate to that High Court, it may always
be open to the Full Court to so act unless the norms expressly
prohibit such a course of action. If the power is always there in
the Full Court, there is no reason why an express conferment of
the same by the Rules/Guidelines is necessary. It is instances
F like these that bring the system of designation of Senior
Advocates into disrepute. Beyond the above, it is not considered
necessary to say anything further as the Counsel appearing for
the High Court of Meghalaya has submitted, on instructions
received, that the High Court would be willing to reconsider the
changes brought in by the amendments and remedy the situation
G by taking appropriate measures. It is left open for the High Court
of Meghalaya to act accordingly and close the writ petitions (Nos.
33 and 819 of 2016) in terms of the said liberty. [Para 28) [523-D-
GJ
3. \Vith regard to the norms and guidelines prevailing in
H
MS. INDIRA JAISING v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 485
THROUGH SECRETARY GENERAL
different High Courts, it is evident that varying periods of practice A
and different slabs of income have been, inter alia, prescribed as
minimum conditions of eligibility for consideration for designation
as a Senior Advocate. If merit and ability is to be the determining
factor, in addition to standing in the Bar and expertise in any
specialized field of law, there should be no insistence on any B
minimum income as a condition of eligibility. The income
generated by a lawyer would depend on the field of his practice
and it is possible that a lawyer doing pro bono work or who
specializes in a particular field may generate a lower return of
income than his counterpart who may be working in another field
of law. Insistence on any particular income, therefore, may be a C
self-defeating exercise. Insofar as age is concerned, instead of
having a minimum age with a provision of relaxation in an
appropriate case it would be better to go by the norm of 10 years
practice at the Bar which is also what is prescribed by Article
217 of the Constitution as a condition of eligibility for being D
considered for appointment as a Judge of the High Court. [Para
34] (527-D-G]
4.1 The following norms/guidelines are laid down 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 E
modified so as to be in accord with the present.
I. 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 F
of Senior Advocates";
II. The Permanent Committee will be headed by the
Hon'ble the Chief Justice oflndia and consist of two senior-
most Judges of the Supreme Court of India (or High
Court(s), as may be); the learned Attorney General for G
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; H
486 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 10 S.C.R.
A III. 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;
B IV. 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'blc
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
c participation in pro-bono work; reported judgments in
which the concerned Advocate(s) 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
D Permanent Committee;
V. The Secretariat will publish the proposal of designation
of a particular Advocate in the official website of the
concerned Court inviting the suggestions/views of other
stakeholders in the proposed designation;
E VI. After the data-base 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
F scrutiny;
VII. The Permanent Committee will examine each case in
the light of the data provided by the Secretariat of the
Permanent Committee; interview the concerned
Advocate; and make its overall assessment on the basis
G of a point-based format.
1. Number of years of practice of the applicant advocate
from the date of enrolment. (20 pohits)
2. Judgments-Reported and unreported. (40 points)
3. Publications by the applicant advocate. (15 points)
H
MS. INDIRA JAISING v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 487
·THROUGH SECRETARY GENERAL
4. Test of personality and suitability on the basis of A
interview/interaction.(25 points)
VIII. All the names that are listed before the Permanent
Committee/cleared by the Permanent Committee will go
to the Full Court.
IX. Voting by secret ballot will not normally be resorted B
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.
X. All cases that have not been favourably considered by C
the Full Court may be reviewed/reconsidered after expiry
of a period of two years following the manner indicated as
if the proposal is being considered afresh.
XI. In the event a Senior Advocate is guilty of conduct
which according to the Full Court disentitles the Senior D
Advocate concerned to continue to be worthy of the
designation the Full Court may review its decision to
designate the concerned person and recall the same. [Para
35) [527-G-H; 528-A-H; 529-A-H; 530-A-D]
4.2 The guidelines enumerated may not be exhaustive of E
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 is left open for consideration
by this Court at such point of time that the same becomes
necessary. [Para 36) (530-E] F
Tata Chemicals Limited vs. Commissioner o,fCustoms
(Preventive) (2015) 11 SCC 628 : [2015] 7 SCR 132;
K.K. Parmar vs. High Court of Gujarat (2006) 5 SCC
789 : [2006] 2 Suppl. SCR 565; Guman Singh vs. State
o.f Rajasthan (1971) 2 SCC 452 - referred to
G
American Advocacy by Robbin, p.4; 'Origin and
Development ofAdvocacy as a Profession', Virginia Law
Review Volume 9, No. 1 (November, 1922), p 28;,
Essays in Legal Ethtcs by Warve/le p 27; 'Origin and
Development ofAdvocacy as a Profession', Virginia Law
H
488 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 10 S.C.R.
A Review Volume 9, No. 1 (November, 1922), p 30;
'Lawyers' by Julian Disney. Paul Redmond, John
Basten, Stan Ross; 2nd Edn; The Law Book Company
Limited, 1986; Report "An Independent Scrutiny of the
Appointments Process of Judges and Queen:~ Counsel
in England and Wales"; "Report on Competition in
B
Professions" by Director General of Fair Trading,
United Kingdom, 2001 - referred toK
Case l,aw Reference
12015] 7 SCR 132 referred to Para 31
c (2006] 2 Suppl. SCR 565 referred to Para 32
(1971) 2 sec 452 referred to Para 32
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No.
454of2015.
D Under Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia.
WITH
W. P. (C) No. 33 of2016
W. P. (C) No. 819 of2016
E T. C. (C) No. I of2017
K.K. Venugopal, Attorney General Ms. Pinky Anand, ASG,
Ms. Indira Jaising, (In-person) Sr. Adv., R. S. Suri, Ajit Kumar Sinha,
C. U. Singh, Sr. Advs., Ms. Radhika Saxena, Ms. Ajita, Ms. Kavita
Bhardwaj, Ms. Anindita Pujari, Mathews J. Nedumpara, A.C. Philip,
F T. R. B. Sivakumar, Ajay Sharma, Sudhir Walia, Rajesh Ranjan, Rajat
Singh, Ms. Madhavi Diwan, Hemant Arya, Mukesh Kumar Maroria,
Annam D. N. Rao, A. Venkatesh, Rahul Mishra, Ms. Tulika Chikker,
Gaurav Bhatia, Yakesh Anand, Memsagar Samantaray, Ms. Lhingneivah,
Ms. Viddusshi, Yakesh Anand, Merusagar Samantaray, Ardhendumauli
G Kumar Prasad, Ms. Taruna Ardhendumauli Prasad, Nirmal Kumar
Ambastha, Nitesh Ranjan, Arnritesh Raj, Ashim Pandya, Purvish Jitendra
Malkan, V.K. Biju, Himanshu Singh Yadav, Kuna! Chatterji,
Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Sibo Sankar Mishra, Niranjan Sahu, Anandh
Kannan N., Ashok Mathur, Nandini Gore, B. K. Adhikary, Virender
Mehta, Anm Monga, Ad vs. with them for the appearing parties.
H
MS. INDIRA JAISING v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 489
THROUGH SECRETARY GENERAL [RANJAN GOGOI, J.]
The Judgment of the Cou1i was delivered by A
RANJAN GOGOi, J. 1. The petitioner in Writ Petition (C) No.
454of2015 is a Senior Advocate designated by the High Court of Bombay
in the year 1986. She has been in practice in the Supreme Court of India
for the last several decades and has also served as an Additional Solicitor
General for the Union oflndia. The perception of the petitioner that the B
present system of designation of Senior Advocates in the Supreme Court
of India is flawed and the system needs to be rectified and acceptable
parameters laid down has led to the institution of Writ Petition (C) No.
454of2015 with the following prayers.
"(a) Issue writ order, or direction declaring that the system of c
designation of Senior Advocates by 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; and
(b) Issue writ order or direction for appointment of a permanent D
Selection Committee with a secretariat headed by a lay person,
which includes the Respondent 4 Attorney General of India,
representatives from the Respondent 5 -SCBA and the
Respondent 6- AOR Association and academics, for the
designation of Senior Advocates on the basis of an assessment
made on a point system as suggested inAnnexure P8; and E
(c) Issue a writ of mandamus or direction directing the
Respondent-! representing Chief Justice and Judges of the
Supreme Court to appoint a Search Committee to identify the
Advocates who conduct Public Interest Litigation (PIL) cases
and Advocates who practice in the area of their Domain Expe1iise F
viz., constitutional law, international arbitration, inter-State water
disputes, cyber laws etc. and to designate them as Senior
Advocates;
(d) Is'sue a writ of mandamus or direction directing the
Respondent-! representing Chief Justice and Judges of the G
Supreme Court to frame guidelines requiring the preparation of
an Assessment Report by the Peers Committee on the Advocates
who apply for designation based oh an index I 00 points as
suggested in Annexure P8;
H
490 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 10 S.C.R.
A (e) Issue a writ of mandamus or direction directing the
Respondent-I representing Chief Justice and Judges of the
Supreme Court to reconsider its decision taken in the Full Court
held on 11.02.2014 and 23.04.2015 and designate as Senior
Advocate all those Advocates whose applications seeking
designation had received recommendation by not less than five
B
Judges of the Supreme Court (including deferred applicants)
during the process of circulation ordered by the Chief Justice."
2. Legal practice in India, though a booming profession, success
has come to a few select members of the profession, the vast majority
of them being designated Senior Advocates. The issues raised in the
C writ petition, therefore, are highly contentious issues raising question of
considerable magnitude so far as the Indian Bar and in fact the Country's
legal system is concerned. Intervention applications, as expected, have
been filed by several individuals and associations, including the Bar
Association of India. The Attorney General for India was requested to
D appear in the case and he has very magnanimously responded to the
request of the Court by remaining present throughout the prolonged
hearing that had taken place.
3. By Order of the Court dated 24.04.2017 passed in I.A. No. 5,
notice of this case was directed to be put up on the website of this Court
E to enable the High Courts and the Bar Associations of the different High
Courts to participate in the proceedings. Pursuant thereto many High
Courts have communicated to the Registry of this Court "the Rules -
(Guidelines)" framed by the High Courts in the matter of designation of
Senior Advocates. The Gujarat High Court Advocates' Association has
filed an intervention application (I.A. No. 53321 of20J.7) which goes
F beyond four corners of the writ petition itself inasmuch as the association
has challenged the validity of Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961
(hereinafter referred to as "the Act") which empowers the Supreme
Court or a High Court to designate Senior Advocates. In view of the
importance of the issue, we have permitted the Gujarat High Court
G Advocates' Association to urge all contentions, as raised, by virtually
treating the Intervention application filed to be a substantive writ petition.
Over and above, there is a writ petition filed before the Delhi High Court
which has been transferred to this Court for being heard along with Writ
Petition (C) No. 454of2015. In the said writ petition (Writ Petition (C)
No. 6331 of 2016 titled "National Lawyers Campaign for Judicial
H
MS. INDIRA JAISING v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 491
THROUGH SECRETARY GENERAL [RANJAN GOGOI, J.]
Transparency and Reforms and Anr. vs. The Bar Council oflndia & A
Anr") Section 16 of the Act as well as Rule 2 of Chapter IV of the
Supreme Court Rules 2013 has been challenged as constitutionally
impermissible. Alternatively, it has been prayed that the designation of
Senior Advocates by the Supreme Court of India as well as the High
Courts of the country be rationalized by laying down acceptable B
parameters to govern the exercise of designation. There is yet another
connected writ petition i.e. Writ Petition (C) No. 33 of2016 filed by The
High CoUli of Meghalaya Bar Association, which was heard by this
Court separately on 14.09.2017. In the aforesaid writ petition the validity
of the guidelines framed by the High Court ofMeghalaya for designation
of Senior Advocate(s) on 13. 1.2016 is under challenge. By the aforesaid C
amendment, an Advocate General of any State of the Country so long
as he himself is a designated Senior Advocate and any Senior Advocate
practicing in any High Court has been authorized to propose the name of
an Advocate, practicing in any court of the Country, for designation as a
Senior Advocate by the High Court ofMeghalaya. In other words, the D
effect of the amendment, in departure to the prevailing practice, is to
enable any Senior Advocate of any High Court to propose the name of
any Advocate practicing in any High Court in the country for designation
as a Senior Advocate of the Meghalaya High Court. Also challenged is
the amendment of the said Guidelines made on 31.03.2015 by which the
requirement of practice of 5 years in any Court within the jurisdiction of E
the High CoUli of Meghalaya has been deleted and instead 5 years
practice in any court, namely, the Supreme Court oflndia, High Courts
or District Courts has been introduced as a condition of eligibility for
designation. Writ Petition (C) No. 819 of2016 also raises the very same
questions.
F
4. We will deal with each of the cases separately and in the order
in which, according to us, the cases should receive our consideration.
5. Before embarking upon what has been indicated above, it is
necessary to go back into history and trace the origins of what today has
come to be recognized as a special class of Advocates, namely, Senior G
Advocates.
6. The profession ofAdvocacy was firmly in existence in the Greek
and Roman legal systems. Emperor Justinian (circa 482-565) had put
lawyers in a high pedestal comparing them with regular soldiers engaged
in the defence of the empire, inasmuch as with the gift of advocacy, H
492 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 10 S.C.R.
A lawyers protect the hopes, the lives and the children of those who are in
serious distress.
7. Towards the end of the Medieval Period (500 A.D. to 1500
A.D.), the Roman Law had made inroads in the rest of Europe influencing
it immensely. The reason attributed to this is the discovery of the Corpus
B Juris Civilis (Civil Law) in the 11 111 century. While in other countries
Civil Law prevailed, in England, Common Law emerged. The Magna
Carta came into being in year 1215.
It has been said that, "of the rise of advocacy in England, not
a great deal can be said of the ancient origin of the
C profession in that country, for much of it is hazed in
uncertainty. Very ear(v in the hist0t:v of England, justice was
crude(v and arbitrarily administered. The village moots, the
shire courts, and in feudal times, the barons' courts,
administered justice without formality. A lawyer was not a
necessity. "1 During these times, the practice of advocacy was
D within the realm of priests, monks (it be reminded, that these are
the times when the Church Law/Canon Law prevailed). While
the priests/the elergy would be insistent upon the study and
application of the Civil Law and Common Law and of the hybrid
of both, the nobility/laity (privileged class/aristocracy, but not
E privileged to undertake priestly responsibilities) would adhere to
the Common Law. This led to dissatisfaction amongst both these
classes (clergy and nobility). "The early English lawyers, in
the main, seem to have been ecclesiastics, but about the year
1207, priest, and persons in holy orders generally were
forbidden to act as advocates in the secular courts, and from
F thenceforward we find the profession composed entirely of
a specially trained class of laymen. "2
8. It was in the l 31h century that, the professional lawyers emerged
in England, after a centralised system for courts had been established to
exercise the royal prerogative of dispensing justice. While earlier, a litigant
G could resort to the help of a knowledgeable friend, the litigation soon
became complex and opened room for expert assistance. In this backdrop,
came into being two classes of lawyers - 'Pleaders' and 'Attorneys'.
1
Robbins, American Advocacy, page 4; 'Origin and Development of Advocacy as a
Profession', Virginia LawReview Volume 9, No. l (November. 1922), page 28.
2 Warvelle, Essays in Legal Ethics, page 27; 'Origin and Development of Advocacy as
H a Profession', Virginia Law Review Volume 9, No. I (November, 1922), page 30
MS. INDIRA JAISING v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 493
THROUGH SECRETARY GENERAL [RANJAN GOGOI, J.]
The Attorneys would pe1form the representative functions for the litigant. A
Attorney's act would be the act of the litigant. Their functions would
comprise administrative activities like serving process, following !is
progress etc. The Pleaders, on the other hand, would be the voice of the
aggrieved. Their functions would include a relatively more complex league
of activities - formulating pleadings, arguing .questions of law before B
the COUI1S.
9. By the time J3th century concluded, a distinguished class of
senior pleaders with considerable. status and experience emerged, and
they came to be known as Serjeants-at-Law. These eminent pleaders
had some special privileges. Th~se were retained specially by the King,
and had exclusive rights of audience before the Court of Common Pleas c
and other Common Law Courts like King's Bench. It was mandatory ·
for the se1jeants to have taken the coif, and as a consequence of this
headdress, their corporate society was called as the Order of the Coif.
The serjeants.were at the pinnacle of the legal profession for a long time
and it is from this pool of men that the selection of judges would be D
made. They were so exclusive and rare, that at a given point of time,
there would be only about ten serjeants in the practice of the law. It
would be the serjeants' arguments that would get reported in the year
books, and since they had the exclusive audience rights in the Common
Law Courts, the evolution of Common Law jurisprudence has been
attributed to them. Soon, they acquired great eminence and close affinity E
with the judges as well. It is said, that they had more judicial element
than the practicing element. Exclusive audience rights made them most
affluent legal practitioners of that era and they remained to be distinguished
and most prominent jurists during the 13'h to 16th century i.e. during the
period when the most of the civ ii litigation would be carried out at the· F
Conrt of Common Pleas.
10. After this point of time, these awe-inspiring class of legal
practitioners witnessed a decline. The descent in their Order.bas been
referenced to the rise of Crown Law Officers like the Attorney-General,
Solicitor General. These Crown Law Officers were retained by the G
monarch as 'Counsels-in-Ordinmy'; however, the eminent order of
serjeants sustained a more perilous d.ent in the 16th century when the
Office of Queen's Counsel came to fore. This was an unprecedented
office. In the year t597, Francis Bacon was appointed by Queen Elizabeth
I as "Learned Counsel Extraordinary";without patent (i.e. it was not
H
494 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 10 S.C.R.
A a formal order). In 1603, the King designated Francis Bacon as the
King's Counsel, and bestowed upon him the right of pre-audience and
precedence, and a few years later, in 1670, it was declared that the
serjeants shall not take precedence over this new league of officers,
thus relegating the otherwise eminent serjeants to a somewhat
subordinate position, and eventually their decline. The final straw;
B
however, was in the year 1846 when the Court of Common Picas was
made open to the entire Bar and in the year 1875 when the Judicature
Act was enacted that removed the requirement for the judges to have
taken the coif.
11. It is not clear as to why the Office of Queen's Counsel was
c really needed, however, they were appointed to assist the other Crown
Law Officers. Further, bestowing of such designations, as a favour, was
a common feature of this era. The Queen's Cow1sels in return for a
small remuneration held permanent retainers and they were prohibited
from appearing against the Crown. And, in return, they would be entitled
D to enjoy the valuable right of pre-audience before the courts. These
counsels were required to wear silk gowns (till date, Queen's Counsels
are either referred to as 'silks', or when elevated to this office, they are
said to have 'taken silk'). Gradually; however, the cleavage between
the Queen's Counsel/King's Counsel and Law Officers disappeared.
The appointments as Queen's Counsel were made to recognize
E professional eminence, or political influence; but soon thereafter, the
public nature of the office declined. They were no longer required to
assist the Crown Law Officers. During the 18th century, selection as
Queen's Counsel became a matter of honour and dignity and a recognition
of professional eminence. And, in the year 1920, the injunction on a
3
F Queen's Counsel to appear against the Crown, was vacated too .
12. The process of appointment of Queen's Counsel in United
Kingdom came in for sharp criticism for reasons like anti-competitive
practices, propagation of coterie etc .. It was felt that the selection process
was secretive and admission and appointment of a Queen's counsel
G was virtually like an admission to an exclusive club. Recommendations
were made by Sir Leonard Peach (appointed by the then Lord Chancellor)
in a report titled as "An Independent Scrutiny of the Appointments Process
ofJ udgcs and Queen's Counsel in England and Wales". In another report,
3 'Lawyers' by Julian Disney, Paul Redmond, John Basten, Stan Ross; 2nd Edition;
The Law Book Company Limited, 1986.
H
MS. INDIRA JAISING v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 495
THROUGH SECRETARY GENERAL [RANJAN GOGOI, J.]
titled as "Report on Competition in Professions" published by Director A
General of Fair Trading, United Kingdom in the year 2001, the
monopolistic nat~e of the practice that develops after appointment as a
Queen's counsel was highlighted. Some of the observations recorded in
the said report would be worthy of notice for the purpose of appreciating
the issues that have arisen before us. We would therefore reproduce the
B
relevant extracts of the report hereinafter.
"276. The appointments system (despite recent reform following
the Peach report) does not appear to operate as a genuine quality
mark. The system is secretive and, so far as we can tell, lacks
objective standards. It also lacks some of the key features of a
recognised accreditation system, such as examinations, peer C
review, fixed term appointments and quality appraisal to ensure
that the quality mark remains justified. We were told that many
solicitors and some barristers criticise the lack of objectivity of
the system.
277. xxx D
278. In our view, therefore, the existing Queen's Counsel system
does not operate as a genuine quality accreditation scheme. It
thus distorts competition amongjunior and senior barristers. Our
evidence indicates that clients do not generally need the assistance
ofa quality mark, but ifthere is to be such a scheme, it should be E
administered by the profession itself on transparent and objective
grounds. Furthermore, there is some evidence that an informal
quota is in operation within the current Queen's Counsel
appointment system, and that it appears to have the effect of
raising fees charged to litigation clients.
F
279. We do not think that a mark of quality or experience is
necessarily anticompetitive, so long as the award is governed by
transparent and objective criteria, and restrictions are based on
qualitative, rather than quantitative, factors. On the evidence
available to us, however, the current system does not pass these
tests." G
13. On account of such and similar highly adverse views in the
matter, details of some of which have been noticed above, in the year
2004-2005 the appointment of Queen's Counselwas suspended
temporarily. It was felt that the designation/appointment may be abolished
in the light of growing concerns of many. However, a new framework H
496 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] JO S.C.R.
A was brought into existence in the year 2005, the salient features whereof
are set out below:
"The recommendations arc made by an independent body called
as Queen's Counsel Selection Panel annually. The final
appointments are made by the Queen on the advice of the Lord
B Chancellor, following consideration by this Panel; the Panel
comprises retired judges, senior barristers, solicitors, distinguished
lay member (who also chairs the Panel). After an application is
made by the aspirant to the Panel, professional conduct checks
are performed; thereafter, the list of candidates is sent to members
of the Judiciary/Bench including the Lord Chief Justice, the
c Master of the Rolls, President of the Queen's Bench Division
etc. These distinguished Bench members can raise objections
regarding the candidate's integrity and the Panel will then allow
the candidate to show cause. Additionally, the candidates are
required to submit written references from judges, fellow
D practitioners, professional clients to enable the understanding of
the candidate's demonstration of competencies. Interviews are
then conducted by Panel members with a view to adducing fu1ther
evidence as to the candidate's demonstration of competencies.
After the interview, candidates are graded by two Panel
members; then the full Selection Panel conducts a review of
E these initial grades. After collective moderation, scrutiny of
borderline cases, the final list is prepared. While inviting
applications every year, emphasis is laid on obtaining
representation from all quarters - like, women, LGBTQ
community, other ethnicities, persons with disabilities."
F 14. At this stage, we may take notice of what is the prevailing
practice in some other jurisdictions.
NIGERIA
(Nomenclature- Senior Advocate of Nigeria)
G The Legal Practitioners' Privileges Committee (established under
the Legal Practitioners Act, 2004) may, by instrument, confer on
a legal practitioner the rank of Senior Advocate ofNigeria.
The award of the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria is a privilege
awarded as mark ofcxccllence to members of the legal profession
H who are in full time legal practice; who have distinguished
MS. INDIRA JAISING v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 497
THROUGH SECRETARY GENERAL [RANJAN GOGOI, J.]
themselves as advocates; who have made significant contribution A
to the development of the legal profession.
The Conunittee shall consist of the Chief Justice (as Chairman);
the Attorney General; one Justice of the Supreme Court; the
President of the Court of Appeal; five ChiefJudges of the States;
Chief Judge of the Federal High Court; five legal practitioners B
who are Senior Advocates of Nigeria.
J. Principles: The award shall be an independent indication of
excellence in the legal profession. It is to provide a public
identification of advocates whose standing and achievement
would justify an expectation on the part of clients, the c
judiciary and the public that they can provide outstanding
services as advocates and advisers in the overall best interest
of administration of justice; every effort shall be made to
ensure that the conferment of the rank of Senior Advocate
of Nigeria on candidates who have met the criteria reflect
national character by achieving as much geographical spread D
and gender representation as is possible
2. Role of the Legal Practitioners' Privileges Committee: The
Committee shall exercise full control and management of
the process of appointing and preserving the dignity of the
Rank of Senior Advocate ofNigeria. The primary mode of E
consultation will be by way of confidential reference from
Judges of superior Courts, not as primary means of selection
· of candidates but more as a final check in the selection
procedure.
3. Methods of Appointment: Call for Applications will be made F
not later than 7th January (or such other date). Application
in the prescribed form must be returned not later than 31st
March of the year (or such other date) to the Committee
Secretariat at the Supreme Court ofNigeria. Candidate shall
pay a non-refundable processing fee in the sum of 400,000 G
Naira (or such other sum).
4. References by Judges and Legal Practitioners & Particulars
of Contested Cases: The application form shall require each
candidate to provide a list of at least l 0 judges of superior
courts before whom he had appeared in contested cases of H
498 SUPREME CQURT REPORTS [2017] JO S.C.R.
A significance. The Committee will select three Judges from
the list provided by the candidate from whom it will request
a detailed confidential reference. The judges will be selected
in such a manner as to ensure that a cross section of Judges
from different Cowis is represented.
B The application form shall require candidates to identify at
least 6 Iegal practitioners by whom the candidate has been
led or that have Jed or against whom by whom the candidate
has been led or that have led or against whom they have
appeared, in contested cases of significance. The
Committee will select 3 such legal practitioners' from the
c list from whom it will request a detailed written confidential
reference.
The candidate has to provide particulars of contested cases
which s/he considers to be of particular significance to the
evaluation of his competence in legal practice and
D . contribution to the development of the law.
5. Competence/Yardsticks: A Candidate must - (a)
demonstrate high professional and personal integrity; (b)
be honest and straightforward in all his professional/personal
dealings; (c) be of good character and reputation; (d) be
E candid with clients and professional colleagues; (e)
demonstrate high level of understanding of cultw·al and
social diversity characteristic of the Nigerian society; (f)
show observance of the Code of Conduct and Etiquette at
the Bar; (g) demonstrate tangible contribution to the
F development of the Law through case Law or publications
in recognized journals at national/international conferences
considered by the Committee to be of particular significance;
(h) have been involved in the provision of at least 3 pro
bono legal services for indigent clients or some form of
community s_ervices.
G
6. Oral Interview: There will be oral interview at the final
stage to enable the Committee to verify the information
provided and afford the committee a frniher opportunity to
ascertain the candidates' competence. Before the oral
interview, the number of candidates shall be pruned to a
H
MS. INDIRAJAISING v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 499
THROUGH SECRETARY GENERAL [RANJAN GOGOI, J.]
final list not exceeding three times the number of applicants A
to be appointed.
7. Interview Process: The Committee shall constitute sub-
committees which shall comprise of three members. Every
candidate that makes the short list shall be interviewed by
a sub-committee. B
The evaluation of the candidate's competence shall be based
on the following weighted criteria- .
a) Integrity- 20%
b) Opinion ofJustices/Judges and the strength ofreferences C
received by candidates - 20%
c) General knowledge of Law - 25%
d) Contribution to development of Law- I 0%
e) Leadership qualities in the profession -10%
D
f) Qualities of Law Office/Library - 15%
AUSTRALIA
In Australia, Senior Counsel is a person who is admitted to practise
as a barrister and solicitor of the Supreme Court of the Australian
Capital Territory and who practises exclusively or substantially E
as counsel (Senior Counsel SC, previously described as Queen's
Counsel (QC).
The Senior Counsel Protocol, states that designation as Senior
Counsel is intended to serve the pubric, whose standing and
achievements justify an expectation, on the part of the those· F
who may need their services, as well as on the part of the judiciary
and the public, that they can provide outstanding services as
independent barristers of the· private bar, for the good of the
administration of justice. Moreover, Appointment as Senior
Counsel should be restricted to Local Practising Barristers, G
Ordinary Members Class A, with acknowledgment of the
importance of the work performed by way of giving advice as
well as appearing in or sitting on courts and other tribunals and
conducting or appearing in alternative dispute resolution, including
arbitrations and mediations.
H
500 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] JO S.C.R.
A Process for appointment:
President of the Australian Capital Territory ("ACT") Bar calls
for applications for appointment as Senior Counsel after which
the applicant (junior counsel) submits the application in writing
to the President accompanying with an application foe as set.
B Applications for appointment as Senior Counsel may also be
accepted from Government Practising Certificate Holders issued
by the ACT Bar Association. Applicants must provide in respect
of all cases, including contested interlocuto1y applications (but
excluding directions hearings), in which they have appeared in
the last 18 months, and if desired, a longer period:
c
(a) the name of the case and, ifavailable, its citation;
(b) the name of the judicial officer, tribunal or arbitrator before
whom they appeared;
(c) the name of any counsel who led them or whom they led;
D
(d) the name of opposing counsel;
(e) the name of their instructing solicitor; and
(t) a brief description of the nature of the proceedings.
The details required in (a) to (f) may be modified in alternative
E
dispute resolution matters or otherwise when confidentiality
required.
The applicants must also identify not more than five members of
the profession who arc familiar with their recent work and qualities
(references).
F
Criteria for selection: The following qualities are required to a
high degree before the appointment:
(a) learning: Must be learned in the law so as to provide sound
guidance to their clients and to assist in the judicial
G interpretation and development of the law.
(b) Skill: Must be skilled in the presentation and testing of
litigants' cases, so as to enhance the likelihood of just
outcomes in adversarial proceedings.
(c) Integrity and honesty: Must be worthy of confidence and
H implicit trust by the judiciary and their colleagues at all times,
MS. INDIRA JAISING v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 50 I
THROUGH SECRETARY GENERAL [RANJAN GOGOI, J.]
so as to advance the open, fair and efficient administration A
ofjustice.
(d) Independerice: Must be committed to the discharge of
counsel's duty to the court, especially in cases where that
duty may conflict with clients, interests.
(e) Disinterestedness: Those who are in private practice must B
honour the cab-rank rules; namely, the duty to accept briefs
to appear for which they are comp.etent and available,
regardless of any personal opinions of the parties or the
causes, and subject only to exceptions related to appropriate
fees and conflicting obligations. c
(f) Diligence: Must have the capacity and willingness to devote
themselves to the vigorous advancement of the clients'
interests.
(g) Experience: Must have the perspective and knowledge of
legal practice acquired over a considerable period. D
Also, some or all of the following may be demonstrated by the
Advocate's practice:
i) Experience in arguing cases on appeal;
ii) A position ofleadership in a specialist jurisdiction; E
iii) Experience in conducting major cases in which the other
party is represented by Senior Counsel;
iv) Experience in conducting cases with a junior;
v) Considerable practice in giving advice in specialist fields of F
law;
vi) Experience and practice in alternative dispute resolution,
including arbitration and mediations; and
vii) Experience in sitting on courts or tribunals.
G
Additionally, demonstrated leadership in:
i) DeV'eloping the diverse community of the Bar; or
ii) Making a significant contribution to Australian society as a
barrister.
H
502 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017) IO S.C.R.
A Criteria for Cessation of appointment:
1. Whose name has been removed from the roll of persons
admitted as lawyers in any Australian jurisdiction; or
2. Whose practicing certificate has been cancelled or
suspended; or
B
3. Against whom a finding ofprofessional misconduct has been
made by a competent court or tribunal.
4. Who has been convicted of a serious offence as defined in
the Legal Profession Act 2006, ceases to hold the
·C appointment and is not permitted to retain or use the title of
Senior Counsel.
5. A finding of unsatisfactory professional conduct has been
made against the appointee by a competent court or tribunal;
or
D 6. The appointee has conditions imposed on his or her practicing
certificate.
Determination ofApplications:
The Selection Committee must seek comments on each applicant
from the following members of the private bar and the judiciary:
E
(a) All Senior Counsel and Queens Counsel Members; (b) The
President of the Court of Appeal; (c) The Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court of the ACT; (d) Judges of the Supreme Court of
the ACT; (e) Master of the Supreme Court of the ACT; (f) The
Chief Magistrate of the ACT Magistrates Court; (g) The Chief
F Justice of the Federal Court of Australia; (h) The Chief Justice
of the Family Court of Australia; (i) Other senior members of
any other courts or tribunals in which the Selection Committee
considers the applicant to have practiced to a substantial extent;
and (j) The President of the ACT Law Society.
G The President may, consult with as many other additional legal
practitioners or members of the judiciary or other persons as is
considered to be ofassistance in consideration of the applications.
He may also consult with any of the persons for whom comments
have already been received, for the purposes of further
H
MS. INDIRA JAISING v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 503
THROUGH SECRETARY GENERAL [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
discussion and cl~rification in considering the applications. The A
President and Assisting Counsel shall, after taking into account
all comments received, make a final selection of the proposed
appointees. He shall then inform the Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court of the ACT of his/her final selection and seek the views of
the Chief Justice on the proposed appointment as Senior Counsel. B
He shall not appoint any applicant whose appointment the Chief
Justice opposes. He then publishes the name/s of the-successful
applicants for appointment as Senior Counsel for that year in
order of intended seniority. After publication of the list of
successful applicants, any unsuccessful applicant may discuss
his or her application with the President. C
SINGAPORE
In Singapore, under Part IV: Privileges of Advocates and
Solicitors in the Legal Profession Act, the process for Appointment
of Senior Counsel is prescribed. Under Section 30, the following
process is laid down: J-· D
1. A Selection Committee comprising the Chief Justice, the
Attorney-General and the Judges ofAppeal may appoint an
advocate and solicitor ora Legal Service Officer as Senior
Counsel if the Selection Committee is of the opinion that, by
virtue of the person's ability, standing at the Bar or special E
knowledge or experience in law, he is deserving of such
distinction.
2. At every meeting of the Selection Committee, 3 members
shall constitute a quorum, and no business shall be transacted
unless a quorum is present. F
3. Subject to this section, the Selection Committee may establish
its own practice and regulate its own procedure:
4. The appointment of a Senior Counsel shall be deemed to be
revoked if the Senior Counsel
G
a) :Deleted.
b) being a Legal Service Officer, is dismissed from the
Singapore Legal Service;
H
504 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 10 S.C.R.
A c) being a member of the Faculty of Law of the National
University of Singapore or the School of Law of the
Singapore Management University, is dismissed from the
Faculty or School, as the case may be;
d) is convicted of an offence by a court of law in Singapore
B or elsewhere and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of
not less than 12 months or to a fine of not less than $2,000
and has not received a free pm·don;
e) becomes mentally disordered and incapable of managing
himself or his affairs;
c f) is an undischarged bankrupt; or
g) enters into a composition with his creditors or a deed of
arrangement with his creditors.
5. The appointment of a Senior Counsel shall be deemed to be
D revoked if, upon an application under section 82A( l 0) or
98(1)-
a) the Senior Counsel is suspended from practice or struck
off the roll; or
b) a court of 3 Judges of the Supreme Court recommends
E that the appointment of the Senior Counsel be revoked.
6. No person shall be appointed as a Senior Counsel unless he
has for an aggregate period of not less than 10 years been
an advocate and solicitor or a Legal Service Officer or both.
7. On 21st April 1989, those persons who, on the date
F immediately preceding that date, are holding office as the
Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General shall be deemed
to have been appointed as Senior Counsel under this section.
8. Any person who, on or after I st June 2007, holds office as
the Attorney-General, a Deputy Attorney-General or the
G Solicitor-General shall, if he is not a Senior Counsel, be
deemed to have been appointed as Senior Counsel under
this section on that date or the date on which he is appointed
Attorney-General, Deputy Attorney-General or Solicitor-
General, whichever is the later.
H
· MS. INDIRA JAISING v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 505
THROUGH SECRETARY GENERAL [RANJAN GOGOI, J.]
IRELAND A
(Nomenclature- Senior Counsel)
The Legal Services Regulation Act, 2015 's Part 12 (Patents of
Precedence) provides for the process of designating the title
'Senior Counsel'.
B
A Patent of Precedence, if granted upon a barrister/solicitor
entitles him to use the title of Senior Counsel. The Advisory
Committee on the grant of Patent of Precedence shall consist of
- (a) the Chief Justice (as Chairman); (b) the President of the
High Court; (c) the Attorney General; (d) Bar Council's
Chairperson; (e) Law ~ociety's President; (f) a lay member. C
The criteria for grant of Patent of Precedence is as follows-(i)
legal practitioner must have displayed a degree of competence
and a degree of probity appropriate to and consistent with the
grant to him or her of a Patent; (ii)s/he must have professional
independence; (iii) s/he must have a proven capacity for . D
excellence in the practice of advocacy; (iv) s/he must have a
proven capacity for excellence in the practice of specialist
litigation; (v) s/he must have specialist knowledge of an area of
law; (vi) s/he must be suitable on grounds of character and
temperament. E
The Advisory Committee, ifit finds that, the candidate meets the
criteria, it will recommend the shortlisted names to the
government to be granted the Patent of Precedence.
15. So far as India is concerned, it apnears that the legal profession
acquired roots in the years of British mlc. The first British Court was F
established in Bombay in the year 1672. In the year 1726, the Mayor
Courts were established in Madras, Bombay and Calcutta. By the Charter
of 1774, the Supreme Court of Judicature was established at Calcutta
and, thereafter, in Bombay and Madras. The Charter allowed only English
and Irish barristers to practice in these courts and no Indian had the right
G
to appear in the Court. In 1862, High Courts were established at Calcutta,
Bombay and Madras. Vakils could now practice before the High Courts
ending the monopoly ofbaJTisters. There was Indian participation in the
courts along with the presence of English lawyers. In 1879, the Legal
Practitioners Act was enacted which defined 'Ltigal Practitioner' to
H
506 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 10 S.C.R.
A mean an Advocate, a Vakil, an attorney of any High Court, a pleader, a
Mukhtar, a revenue-agent. The Indian Bar Councils Act, I 926 was then
passed to unify the various grades of legal practice and to provide
autonomy to the Bar. Prior to the coming into force of the Advocates
Act, 196 l, so far as the Supreme Court oflndia is concerned, designation
as a senior Advocate was a matter of choice for any Advocate, who had
B
completed 10 years of practice and who was otherwise willing to abide 1'
by certain conditions, e.g., not to directly deal with clients or file papers
and documents in the courts etc. Designations which were exclusively
dealt with by the Bar came to be vested in the Supreme Court with the
enactment of the Supreme Court Rules of the year 1966. Similar was
c the earlier position in the Bombay High Court. The change in the scenario
could be attributed to the enactment of the Advocates Act, 1961
whereunder the task of designating Senior Advocate was, for the first
time, statutorily entrusted to the Supreme Court/High Courts. Section
16 of the Act which deals with the matter and has led to the present
debate, is in the following terms.
D
"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
E 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
F the interest 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, forthe
purposes of this section, be deemed to be a senior advocate:
Provided that where any such senior advocate makes an
G
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."
H
MS. INDIRA JAISING v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 507
THROUGH SECRETARY GENERAL [RANJAN GOGOI, J.]
16. Rule 2 of Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules 2013 and its A
sub-rules may also be seen at this stage:
"2(a) The ChiefJustice and the Judges may, with the consent of
the advocate, designate an advocate as senior advocate if in
their opinion by virtue of his ability, standing at the Bar or special
knowledge or experience in law the said advocate is deserving B
of such distinction.
(b) A senior advocate shall not-
(i) file a vakalatnama or act in any Court or Tribunal in India;
(ii) appear without an advocate-on-record in the Court or without C
a junior in any other Court or Tribunal in India;
(iii) accept instructions to draw pleadings or affidavit, advise on
· evidence or do any drafting work of an analogous kind in any
Court or Tribunal in India or undertake conveyancing work of
any kind whatsoever but this prohibition shall not extend to settling D
any such matter as aforesaid in consultation with a junio~;
(iv) accept directly from a client any brief or instructions to appear
in any Court or Tribunal in India.
Explanation.-
In this order- E
(i) 'acting' means filing an appearance or any pleadings or
applications in any Court or Tribunal in India, or any act (other
than pleading)required or authorized by law to be done by a party
in such Collrt or Tribunal either in person or by his recognized
agent or by an advocate or attorney on his behalf. F
(ii) 'tribunal' includes any authority or person legally authorized
to take evidence and before whom advocates are, by or under
any law for the time being in force, entitled to practice.
(iii) 'junior' means an advocate other than a senior advocate. G
(c) Upon an advocate being designated as a senior advocate, ·
the Registrar shall communicate to all the High Courts and the
Secretary to the Bar Council of India and the Secretary of the
State Bar Council concerned the name of the said Advocate and
the date on which he was so designated."
H
508 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 10 S.C.R.
A 17. So far as the practice prevailing in the Supreme Court of India
for designation of senior advocates is concerned, from the Affidavits
filed on behalf of the Registry of the Supreme Court it seems that the
essence of the practice in vogue is that 20 years of combined standing
as an Advocate or a District and Sessions Judge or a Judicial Member
ofany Tribunal (qualification for eligibility for appointment in such Tribunal
B
should not be less than what is prescribed for appointment as a District
Judge), entitles an Advocate to apply for being designated as a Senior
Advocate by the Supreme Court. A relaxation to the aforesaid requirement
i.e. length of practice was recommended in the year 1996 by an
Administrative Committee of three Hon'ble Judges which also appears
c have been acted upon in specific cases. All applications received are
to
circulated to the Hon'ble Chief Justice and all Hon'ble Judges. Only
those cases which have been approved by a minimum of five Hon'ble
Judges are put up before the Full Com1. If the Hon'ble Chief Justice or
any Hon'ble Judge of the Supreme Court is of the view that a particular
D Advocate deserves the distinction of being designated as a Senior
Advocate, the Hon 'ble Chief Justice or the Hon 'ble Judge, as may be,
can also recommend the name of such Advocate for being considered
for designation. All such names would also be circulated amongst the
Judges in the same manner and undergo the same process until the
short-listed names reach the Full Court. In the Full Court, decisions are
E taken on the basis of voting by secret ballot and by the rule of majority.
18. Insofar as the High Comts of the country are concerned, it
appears that there is no uniform criteria or yardstick. Age; income; length
of practice; requirement of practice in the High Court in which designation
is sought or in a court subordinate to such High Court appear to be the
F broad parameters which different High Court.s 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.
(1) HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
G The High Court of Calcutta has published a Notification on the 29th of
September, 2014, and has crystallized the procedure in order to designate
advocates as a Senior Advocate:
(I) The advocate must not be less than 40 years of age at the time of
moving an application, and he must have an experience of not less than
H
MS. INDIRA JAISING v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 509
THROUGH SECRETARY GENERA!,, [RANJAN GOGOI, J.]
15 years at the Bar. The experience ofan'~dvocate at the State Judicial A
. Services is counted towards the overall experience; however, such
advocate must have practiced at the Bar for not less than 07 years after
the cessation of services at the State Judicial Services.
(II) Any former Judge of a High Court entitled to practice before the
High Court of Calcutta may move an application in writing before the B
Chief Justice and seek the designation of a Senior Advocate.
(III) Any Judge of the High Court maytecommend to the ChiefJustice
the name of an advocate who is worthy to receive this designation.
(IV) The Chief Justice shall constitute a standing committee of seven
Judges in order to consider the .applications moved by the interested c
candidates.
(V) The standing committee shall scrutinize the applications and
recommend the candidates who are worthy to be considered by the
Full-Court.
D
(VI) The Full-Court shall deliberate upon the applications recommended
by the standing committee and the Full-Court shall vote upon such
applications by casting secret ballots.
'
(VII) Any applicant who gets the votes of2/3rd of the Judges, or more,
is conferred the designation of a Senior Advocate. If a particular E
application is rejected by the High Court, then such advocate will not be .
considered for a subsequent period of two years.
(2). HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
The High Court ofTripura has published a Notification on the 17th of
July, 2013, and has crystallized the procedure in order to designate F
advocates as a Senior Advocate:
(I) The advocate seeking designation. shall not be less than 45 years of
age at the time of moving an application and he must have practiced at
the Bar for not less than 15 years. The advocate must be enrolled with
the Bar Council ofTripura and he must be primarily practicing before G
the High Court ofTripura or the courts subordinate to the High Court.
(II) The application for consideration in reference to an advocate may
be moved either by the advocate himself or by a Judge ·of the High
Court.
H
510 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 10 S.C.R.
A (III) The advocate shall have a net annual taxable income which is not
less than three lakh rupees, accruing from the legal profession, in
reference to the preceding three years;
Provided that this clause will not apply to the Law Officers of the
Government.
B (IV) The applications are deliberated upon by the Full-Court and the
votes will be cast by secret ballots.
(V) An advocate is required to get 3/4th of the votes of the Full-Court in
order to be designated as a Senior Advocate. If an applicant is rejected
by the High Court, then his designation will not be considered for a
C subsequent period of two years.
(3). HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
The High Cornt ofTiiarkhand employs this procedure in order to designate
advocates as a Senior Advocate:
D (I) The advocate seeking designation, while moving an application, must
have an experience which is not less than 15 years at the Bar. The
advocate is also required to be an ordinary resident of Jharkhand and is
required to be practicing before the High Court.
(II) The application for consideration in reference to an advocate may
E be moved either by the advocate himself or by a Judge of the High
Court.
(III) The Full-Court shall deliberate upon the applications so received
and may designate an advocate as a Senior Advocate if he is worthy of
such designation. If an applicant is rejected by the Full-Court, then his
F designation will not be considered for a subsequent period of two years.
(4). HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
The High Court of Uttarakhand has published a Notification on the 04th
ofAugust, 2009, and has crystallized the procedure in order to designate
advocates as a Senior Advocate:
G
(I) An advocate seeking designation must have an experience which is
not less than 20 years at the Bar, he must be enrolled with the State Bar
Council ofUttarakhand and he must be an ordinary resident ofNainital.
(II) The application for consideration shall be moved by a Judge of the
H High Court, along with the consent of the advocate in question.
MS. INDIRA JAISING v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 511
THROUGH SECRETARY GENERAL [RANJAN GOGOI, J.]
(Ill) The Full-Court shall deliberate upon the recommendations and the A
designation is conferred upon the advocate with the attainment of a
simple majority of votes.
(IV) The Full-Court has the power to·strip ojJthe designation conferred.
unto an advocate, through a simple majority of votes, ifthe High Court is
of the opinion that such advocate is not worthy of the designation any B
more.
{5), HIGH COURT OF GUWAHATI'
· The High Court ofGuwahati has published a Notification on the 09th of
September, 2011, and has crystallized the procedure in order to designate
advocates as a Senior Advocate: · C
(I) The application seeking consideration shall be moved either by the
Advocate-General for a State, two senior advocates practicing before
the High Court of Guwahati or suo motu by the High Court.
(II) The advocate shall not be less than 35 years of age at the time of D
moving an application and he must have an experience which is not less
than 10 years either at the Bar or at the State Judicial Services. The
advocate is also required to have practiced before a court under the
jurisdiction of the High Court of Guwahati for a term which is not less
than 05 years.
E
(III) The advocate must have a net annual taxable income which is not
less than two lakh rupees and he must be a permanent resident of a
State falling under the jurisdiction of the High Court of Guwahati. The
advocate is also required to be enrolled with the State Bar Council of
Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, Mizoram, Meghalaya, Nagaland,
Tripura or Sikkim. F
(IV) The Chief Justice may constitute a committee consisting of not less
than three Judges of the High Court in order to consider the applications.
The committee so constituted shall place its recommendations before
the Full-Court.
, G
(V) The applications shall be deliberated upon by the Full-Court and the
designation is conferred unto the advocate if he secures the votes of 2/
3rd of the Judges. If the proposal in reference to a particular advocate is
rejected, then his designation will riot be considered for a subsequent
period of two years.
H
512 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] IO S.C.R.
A (6). HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
The High Court of Orissa has published a Notification on the 23rd of
June, 2011, and has crystallized the procedure in order to designate
advocates as a Senior Advocate:
(I) The advocate seeking consideration shall not be less than 35 years of
B age at the time of moving an application and he must have an experience
which is not less than I 0 years at the Bar. The services rendered by the
advocate at the State Judicial Services will also be considered.
(II) The advocate must have a net annual taxable income which is not
less than three lakh rupees.
c
(III) The Full-Court shall consider the applications and designation is
conferred upon advocates who secure a simple majority of votes. The
advocates rejected by the High Court will not be considered for a
subsequent period of one year.
(7). HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH
D
The High Court of Chhattisgarh has published a Notification on the 21st
of March, 2014, and has crystallized the procedure in order to designate
advocates as a Senior Advocate:
(I) The application seeking designation may be moved either by the
E advocate himself or by a Judge of the High Court. The advocate seeking
designation must not be less than 45 years of age and he must have an
experience at the Bar which is not less than 20 years. The experience
accrued through the State Judicial Services will be considered and the
advocate must have practiced before the High Court for a term which is
not less than l 0 years.
F
(II) The advocate must have a net annual taxable income which is not
less than five lakh rupees for the preceding three years.
(III) The Chief Justice may constitute a committee in order to consider
the applications moved by the advocates. The recommendations of the
G committee are placed before the Full-Court for consideration. The
advocate must secure votes of at least 2/3rd of the Judges of the Full-
Court in order to be designated as a Senior Advocate. The advocates
rejected by the High Court will not be considered for a subsequent term
of two years.
H
MS. INDIRA JAISING v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 513
THROUGH SECRETARY GENERAL [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
(8). HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA A
The High Court ofMeghalaya has the following procedure in order to
.designate advocates as a Senior Advocate:
(I) The application seeking designation may be moved by a Judge of the
High Court, the Advocate-General for Meghalaya or by three senior
advocates practicing before the High Court. B
(II) The advocate shall not be less than 35 years of age and he shall
have an experience which is not less than l 0 years at the Bar. The
·experience accrued by the advocate at the State Judicial Services is
considered towards the overall experience.
c
(III) The advocate must secure votes of at least 2/3rd of the Judges of
the Full-Court in order to be designated as a Senior Advocate. The
advocates rejected by the High Court will not be considered for a
subsequent term of two years.
(9). HIGH COURT AT HYDERABAD D'
The High Court at Hyderabad has published a Notification on the 16th
of March, 20 l 6, and has crystallized the procedure in order to designate
advocates as a Senior Advocate:
(I) The application seeking designation shall be moved by at least three
senior advocates practicing before the High Court. The advocate seeking E
designation must not be less than 45 years of age and he must have an
experience which is not less than 15 years. The experience accrued by
the advocate as a State Judicial Officer will be counted towards the
overall experience.
(II) The advocate must have a net annual taxable income which is not F
less than ten lakh rupees over the preceding three years.
(III) The Full-Court shall deliberate upon the applications and an advocate
securing over 2/3rd of the votes will be designated as a SeniorAdvocate.
The method of voting is by the casting of secret ballots. An advocate
rejected by the High Court shall not be considered for a subsequent G
period of two years.
(10). HIGH COURT OF DELHI
The High Court of Delhi has published a Notification on the 14th of
December, 2012, and has crystallized the procedure in order to designate
advocates as a Senior Advocate: H
. ..
514 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] lOS.C.R.
A (I) The application for designation is considered suo motu by the High
Court or moved by five senior advocates of the High Court, along with
the consent of the advocate concerned. The advocate must have an
experience which is not less than I 0 years at the Bar and he must be
enrolled with the Bar Council of Delhi.
B (II) The applications are considered by the Full-Court and an advocate
must secure not less than 2/3rd of the ballots cast by the Judges. A
Jildge is allowed to abstain from the voting procedure and such votes
shall not be counted towards the final number of ballots cast.
(Ill) An advocate rejected by the High Court will not be considered for
c a subsequent period of one year.
(11). HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
The High Court ofKarnataka employs this procedure in order to designate
advocates as a Senior Advocate:
D (I) The application seeking designation may be moved by a Judge of the
High Court, two senior advocates practicing before the High Court or
by the advocate himself.
(II) The advocate must have an experience which is not less than 15
years at the Bar and must have a net annual taxable income which is not
E less than three lakh rnpees over the preceding five years.
(Ill) An advocate must secure a simple majority of votes cast at the
meeting of the Full-Court in order to secure the designation ofa Senior
Advocate. The advocates rejected by the High Court will not be
considered for a subsequent period of two years.
F (12). HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana has published a Notification on
the 31st of January, 2007, and has crystallized the procedure in order to
designate advocates as a Senior Advocate:
(I) The advocate seeking designation must have an experience which is
G not less than 15 years at the Bar.
(II) The advocate must have a net annual taxable income which is not
less than 15 lakh rnpees for the preceding two years and a net annual
taxable income which is not less than 10 lakh rupees over the preceding
three years. The application for consideration must be moved on behalf
H
MS. INDIRA JAISING v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 5I5
THROUGH SECRETARY GENERAL [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
of the advocate by two senior advocates practicing before the High A
Court.
(III) The Full-Comi may designate an applicant as a Senior Advocate
through a simple majority. The Judges arc allowed to abstain from the
voting procedure. The advocates rejected by the High Co mt will not be
considered for a subsequent term of two years. B
(13). HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
The High Court of Himachal Pradesh has published a Notification on
the 19th of July, 2009, and has crystallized the procedure in order to
designate advocates as a Senior Advocate:
c
(I) The applications for consideration will be considered by the High.
Court suo motu. The advocates will have to be enrolled with the Bar
Council ofHimachal Pradesh for consideration.
.
(II) The advocate must not be less than 45 years of age and must have
an experience which is not less than 15 years at the time of consideration. D
The advocate must have a net annual taxable income which is not less
than three lakh rupees over the preceding three years.
(III) The Full-Court will cast secret ballots and an advocate must secure
at least 3/4th of the votes for a designation. The advocates rejected by
the High Court will not be considered for a subsequent term of two
E
years.
(14). HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh has published a Notification on the
11th ofApril, 2012, and has crystallized the procedure in order to designate
advocates as a Senior Advocate: F
(I) The applications seeking designation may be moved by the advocate
himself or may be considered suo motu by the High Court.
(II) The advocate must have an experience which is not less than 15
years at the Bar and must have a net annual taxable income which is not
less than ten lakh rupees over the preceding three years. The applications G
will be placed before a committee of Judges constituted by the Chief
Justice and the recommendations of this committee will be placed before
the Full-Court.
H
516 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] IOS.C.R.
A (III) The Full-Court will vote by casting secret ballots and an advocate
will have to secure a simple majority of votes in order to receive the
designation. The advocates rejected by the High Court will not be
considered for a subsequent period of two years.
(15). HIGH COURT OF PATNA
B The High Court of Patna has c1ystallized this procedure in order to
designate advocates as a Senior Advocate:
(I) The applications seeking designation may be moved by the advocate
or may be considered suo motu by the High Court.
c (II) The advocate must not be less than 38 years of age and must have
an experience which is not less than 10 years at the Bar.
(III) The Full-Court will vote by casting secret ballots and the advocate
must secure a simple majority of votes for.designation.
(16). HIGH COURT OF KERALA
D
The High Court of Kerala has published a Notification on the 18th of
January, 2000, and has crystallized the procedure in order to designate
advocates as a Senior Advocate:
(I) The application seeking designation may be moved by the advocate
himself, by two senior advocates practicing before the High Court or ·
E may be considered by the High Court suo motu.
(II) An advocate must not be less than 45 years of age and must have an
experience which is not less than 15 years at the time of consideration.
The advocate must also have a net annual taxable income which is not
less than two lakh rupees over the preceding three years.
F
(III) The Full-Comi will cast votes through secret ballots and the advocate
must secure at least 2/3rd of the votes for designation. The advocates
rejected by the High Court will not be considered for a subsequent term
of two years.
G (17). HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
The High Court of Bombay has published a Notification on the 28th of
August, 2013, and has crystallized the procedure in order to designate
advocates as a Senior Advocate:
(I) The application for consideration may be moved on behalf of the
H advocate by a senior advocate of the Bar.
MS. INDIRA JAISING v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 517
THROUGH SECRETARY GENERAL [RANJAN GOGOI, J.]
(IT) The advocate must have an experience which is not less than 15 A
years at the Bar and must have an net annual taxable income which is
not less than seven lakh rupees. ·
(III) The applications will be considered by a committee of Judges
constituted by the Chief Justice and the recommendations of this
committee will be placed before the Full-Court. The Judges of the Full- B
Court are allowed to abstain from the proceedings and the advocate
must secure at least 2/3rd of the votes for a designation.
(18). HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
The High Court of Gujarat has published a Notification on the 09th of
August, 2012, and has crystallized the procedure .in order to designate C
advocates as a Senior Advocate:
{I) The applications seeking designation may be moved by the advocate
or may be considered suo motu by the High Court.
(II) The advocate must not be less than 40 years of age and must have D
an experience which is not less than 15 years at the time of consideration.
The advocate must have a net annual taxable income not Jess than 15
lakh rupees over the pteceding three years.
(ill) The Full-Court will deliberate upon the applications and the advocate ,
must secure at least 2/3rd of the votes for a designation. The voting is E
through the casting of secret ballots and the Judges are allowed to abstain
from voting. The advocates rejected by the High Court will not be
considered for a subsequent term of two years.
(19). HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
The High Court ofRajasthan has published a Notification on the 30th of F
April, 2010, and has crystallized the procedure in order to designate
advocates as a Senior Advocate:
(I) The applications seeking designation may be moved by the advocate
or may be considered suo motu by the High Court.
(II) The advocate must not be less than 40 years of age and must have G
an experience which is not less than 20 years at the time of consideration.
(III) The Full-Comi will deliberate upon the applications and the advocate
must secure at least 2/3rd of the votes for a designation. The advocates
rejected by the High Court will not be considered for a subsequent term
of five years. H
518 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] lOS.C.R.
A (20). HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
The High Court ofAllahabad has published a Notification on the l 0th of
December, 2010, and has crystallized the procedure in order to designate
advocates as a Senior Advocate:
(I) The applications seeking designation must be moved with the consent
B of the advocate by seven senior advocates practicing before the High
Court.
(II) The advocate so recommended must have an experience which is
not less than 20 years at the Bar.
C (Ill) The Full-Court will vote by casting secret ballots and the advocate
must secure a simple majority for the designation. The advocates rejected
by the High Court will not be considered for a subsequent term of two
years.
(21). HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM
D The High Court of Sikkim has published a Notification on the 05th of
June, 2009, and has crystallized the procedure in order to designate
advocates as a Senior Advocate:
(I) The applications seeking designation may be moved by a Judge of
the High Court, Advocate-General for Sikkim or two senior advocates
E practicing before the High Court.
(II) The advocate must not be less than 35 years of age and he must
have an experience which is not less than 10 years at the Bar. The
advocate is also required to have a net annual taxable income which is
not less than two lakh rupees.
F (III) The Full-Court will deliberate upon the applications and the advocate
must secure at least 2/3rd of the votes for a designation. The advocates
rejected by the High Court will not be considered for a subsequent term
of two years.
(22). HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
G
The High Court of Madras has crystallized this procedure in order to
designate advocates as a Senior Advocate:
(I) The applicant must have an experience which is not less than 15
years at the Bar. The services rendered by the applicant as a Judicial
H
MS. INDIRA JAISING v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 519
THROUGH SECRETARY GENERAL [RANJAN GOGOI, J.]
Officer is included while calculating the years of service. A
(II) The applicant must have an annual gross income, accruing from the.
profession of law, which is not less than seven lakh rupees for the
preceding three years, and the applicant must be an income-tax assessee
for the preceding ten years from the date of consideration;
Provided that this condition will not apply to Government counsel who B
are serving as Law-Officers at the·relevant time.
(Ill) The applicant must furnish at least 15 judgments, over the preceding
three years, wherein he has contributed towards the growth of law.
(IV) The primary criteria for designation is the caliber, merit, ability and c
academic distinction of the applicant; including his character, conduct
and behavior towards the court and brother/sister members of the Bar.
(V) The applicant must be primarily.practicing before the High Comi of
Madras, or the courts or tribunals subordinate to the High Court.
The High Court in its report submitted through the Registrar General D
states that additionally it is following the following procedure for
conferring/removing a designation upon ll!lf'dvocate: '-
(I) A Selection Committee is put in place and it consists of ten Hon 'ble
Judges of the High Comi. ';:
E
(II) The Advocates, who fulfill the norms as mentioned herein, shall
move an application in the prescribed format before the Selection
Committee.
/ (III) The Selection Committee verifies the credentials of applicants and
recommends the names for designation before the Chief Justice of the
High Court. The opinion of the Chief Justice will prevail if there is no F
consensus among the Selection Committee in this regard.
(N) The credentials of the recommended applicants will be placed before
the Full-Court and the opinion of the majority will prevail.
(V) The Full-Court, through a simple majority, is also empowered to G
strip anAdvocatc off this designation if the High Court is of the opinion
that such advocate is not worthy to hold the distinction any more.
19. We may now proceed to take up th€ca.~cs in such scriatim as
would be required. "-,,
" H
520 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 10 S.C.R.
A I.A. N0.53321 OF 2017 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) N0.454 OF
20.15 (FILED BY GUJARAT HIGH COURT ADVOCATE'S
ASSOCIATION]
&
TRANSFERRED CASE NO.l OF 2017 [I.E. WRIT PETITION
B (CNIL) N0.6331 OF 2016 FILED BY THE NATIONAL LAWYERS
CAMPAIGN FOR JUDICIAL TRANSPARENCY AND REFORMS]
20. We have heard Shri Ashim Anand, learned counsel appearing
for the applicant (Gujarat High Court Advocate's Association), Shri
Mathews J. Nedumpara, learned counsel for the petitioner in Transferred
C Case No. I of 2017, Shri R.S. Suri, learned Senior Counsel. who is also
the President, Supreme Court Bar Association, Shri Annam D.N. Rao,
learned counsel for the Supreme Court oflndia through Secretary General
and the learned counsels for the interveners.
21. The challenge to Section 16 of the Act and Order N rule 2 of
D the Supreme Comi Rules, 2013 is primarily founded on the basis that the
classification made resulting in two classes of Advocates i.e. 'Senior
Advocates' and 'Advocates' is not based on any reasonable and
acceptable basis; even ifthere be one, the same has no connection with
the object sought to be achieved by such classification. It is argued that
E not only the practice of designation of Senior Advocates is a relic of the
feudal past but it negates the concept of equality inasmuch as the
professional qualifications of a "Senior Advocate" and an "Advocate"
are the same and so also the competence and ability in most cases; yet,
a Senior Advocate, by virtue of his designation, stands out as a class
apart not only because of the special dress code prescribed but also
F because of the right of pre-audience conferred by Section 23 of the Act.
A Senior Advocate steals an undeserving head start in the profession. It
is further contended that the designation of Senior Advocate being a
conferment made by the Judges, the same gives the impression of
recognition of an Advocate by the Judges which professionally has an
G adverse impact on others who have not been so designated, besides
giving an unfair advantage to the person so designated. It is argued that
because designation is conferred by the Judges there is a public
perception that it is only the Senior Advocates who have been recognized
by the Judges to be persons of competence, ability and merit. It is the
perception of the petitioner-Association that undue indulgence is shown
H
MS. INDIRA JAISING v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 521
THROUGH SECRETARY GENERAL [RANJAN GOGOI, J.]
to Senior Advocates by the Courts. The litigant, in the circumstances, is A
left with no choice but to engage a Senior Advocate who in turn charges
high fees for his/her services to the prejudice of the litigants. It is further
contended that the entire exercise of designation is a subjective process
disclosing no basis for the particular conclusion reached. There being
nothing to differentiate a person designated and a person who has not B
been so designated, the equality clause enshrined in Article 14 of the
Constitution of India is violated. It is also contended that even if an
objective criteria is laid down and is followed, the distinction between
the two classes of Advocates has no nexus with the object sought to be
achieved i.e. adv~nccmcnt of the legal system which in any case is also
and, in fact, effectively serviced by Advocates who are not designated C
as Senior Advocates. The practice of designation of Senior Advocates
has also been challenged on the ground that the same violates Article 18
of the Constitution of India which imposes an embargo on conferment
of title by the State. Though state honours like 'Bharat Ratna', Padma
Vibhushan' etc. arc still being conferred, the said honours are not prefixed D
or suffixed to the names of the recipients unlike that of a 'Senior
Advocate'. The conferment of designation being an instance of exercise
of the administrative power of the Supreme Court arid the High Courts
the same is contrary to the mandate of Article 18 of the Constitution of
India, it is argued.
22. We have considered the matter. E
23. The exercise of the power vested in the Supreme Court and
the High Courts to designate an Advocate as a Senior Advocate is
circumscribed by the requirement of due satisfaction that the concerned
·advocate fulfills the three conditions stipulated under Section 16 of the
Advocates Act, 1961, i.e., (1) ability; (2) standing at the bar; and/or (3) F
special knowledge or experience in law that the person seeking
designation has acquired. It is not an uncotitrollcd, unguided, uncanalised
power though in a given case its exercise may partake such a character.
However, the possibility of misuse cannot be a ground for holding a
provision of the Statute to be constitutionally fragile. The consequences G
spelt out by the intervener, namely, (1) indulgence perceived to be shown
by the Courts to Senior Advocates; (2) the effect of designation on the
litigant public on account of high fees charged; (3) its baneful effect on
the junior members of the bar; and (4) the element of anti-competitiveness,
etc. are untoward consequences occasioned by human failures. Possible
H
522 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017) l 0 S.C.R.
A consequences arising from a wrong/improper exercise of power cannot
be a ground to invalidate the provisions of Section 16 of the Act.
Recognition of qualities of merit and ability demonstrated by in-depth
knowledge of intricate questions of law; fairness in court proceedings
consistent with the duties of a counsel as an officer of the Court and
contributions in assisting the Court to charter the right course of action
B.
in any given case, all of which would go to determine the standing of the
Advocate at the bar is the object behind the classification. Such an
object would enhance the value of the legal system that Advocates
represent. So long as the basis of the classification is founded on
reasonable parameters which can be introduced by way of uniform
c guidelines/norms to be laid down by this Court, we do not see how the
power of designation conferred by Section 16 of the Act can be said to
be constitutionally impermissible.
24. Similar is the position with regard to the challenge founded on
the alleged violation of Article 18 of the Constitution of India. The
D designation 'Senior Advocate' is hardly a title. It is a distinction; a
recognition. Use of the said designation (i.e. Senior Advocate), per se,
would not be legally impermissible inasmuch as in other vocations also
we find use of similar expressions as in the case of a doctor referred to
as a 'Consultant' which has its own implications in the medical world.
There are doctors who are referred to as 'Senior Consultants' or as a
E 'Senior Surgeon'. Such expressions arc instances of recognition of the
talent and special qualities of a person which has been proved and tested
over a period of time. In fact, even in bureaucratic circles such suffixes
and prefixes are also not uncommon. We, therefore, take the view that
the designation of'Advocates' as.'Senior Advocates' as provided for in
F Section 16 of the Act would pass the test of constitutionality and the
endeavour should be to lay down norms/guidelines/parameters to make
the exercise conform to the three requirements of the Statute already
enumerated herein above, namely, ( l) ability of the advocate concerned;
(2) his/her standing at the bar; and (3) his/her special knowledge or
experience in law.
G
25. I.A. N0.53321 of2017 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.454 of2015
filed by the Gujarat High Court Advocates' Association is accordingly
disposed of in the above terms. So is the Transferred Case No.I of
2017 [i.e. Writ Petition (Civil) No.6331 of 2016 filed by the National
Lawyers Campaign for Judieial Transparency and Reforms in the Delhi
H High Court].
MS. INDIRA JAISING v. SUPREME COURT OF INDiA 52.3
THROUGH SECRETARY GENERAL [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NOS.33 AND 819 OF 2016 [FILED BY A
THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA BAR ASSOCIATION,
SHILLONG]
26. As already indicated, the grievance of the peti!ioner in these
writ petitions is with regard to the amendment of the guidelines framed
by the High Court of Meghalaya governing the issue of designation of B
Senior Advocates. The grievance specifically is directed against the
amendment dated 31" March, 2015 by which the requirement of 05
years' practice in any Court within the jurisdiction the High Court of
Meghalaya has been done away with and an Advocate practicing in any
corni of the country has been made eligible.
c
· ·., -21. There is a further amendment made on l 3'h January, 20 I 6 by
which any Senior Advocate of any High Court in the country can sponsor
any advocate in any court in India to be designated as a Senior Advocate
by the High Couti ofMeghalaya. Even at first blush, the guidelines have
been couched, by the amendments thereto, in too wide terms for
acceptance. D
28. The power of designating any person as a Senior Advocate is
always vested in the Full Court either of the Supreme Court or of any
High Couti. If an extraordinary situation arises requiring the Full Court
of a High Comi to depart from the usual practice of designating an
advocate who has practiced in that High Court or in a court subordinate E
to that High Court, it may always be open to the Full Court to so act
unless the norms expressly prohibit such a course ofaction. lfthe power
is always there in the Full Court, we do not see why an express
conferment of the same by the Rules/Guidelines is necessary. It is
instances like these that bring the system of designation of Senior F
Advocates into disrepute. Beyond the above, we do not consider it
necessary to say anything further as Shri P.S. Patwalia, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the High Court of Meghalaya has submitted, on
instructions received, that the High Court would be willing to reconsider
the changes brought in by the amendments and remedy the situation by
taking appropriate measures. We leave it open for the High Court of G
Meghalaya to act accordingly and close the writ petitions (Nos. 33 and
819 of 2016) in terms of the aforesaid liberty.
29. Shri K.K. Venugopal, learned Attorney General for India, Shri
R.S. Suri, learned Senior Counsel and President, SCBA, Shri C.U. Singh,
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Bar Association of India, Shri H
524 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 10 S.C.R.
A Annam D.N. Rao, learned counsel for the Supreme Court of India through
the Secretary General and Shri V.K. Biju, the intervener have all urged
that existing practice of designation of Senior Advocates should continue
though there is room to add to the existing guidelines/parameters governing
the exercise. The arguments advanced by Shri K.K. Venugopal, the
B learned Attorney General for India and Shri R.S. Suri, learned Senior
· Counsel would seem to suggest that in the process of designation some
amount of say of the Bar by including participation of the representatives
of the Bar should be provided. The representatives of the Bar can provide
valuable inputs to the Hon'ble Judges who may not be, at all times,
familiar with the credentials of a person seeking designation as a Senior
C Advocate. It is urged that this is particularly true in the case of the
Supreme Cow1 oflndia where the Hon 'ble Judges hold office for short
tenures and may not have had the opportunity to experience the conduct
of cases by a particular advocate seeking designation.
30. Ms. Indira Jaising, who has spearheaded the entire exercise
D before the Court, at no stage, pressed for declaration of Section 16 of
. the Act or the provisions of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 as
unconstitutional. Her endeavour, particularly in the rejoinder arguments,
has been to make the exercise of designation more objective, fair and
transparent so as to give full effect to consideration of merit and ability,
standing at the bar and specialized knowledge or exposure in any field of
E law.
31. Both Section 16(2) of the Act and Order IV rule 2 of the
Supreme Court Rules, 2013 are significant in use of the expression "is of
opinion" and "in their opinion" respectively which controls the power of
the Full Court to designate an Advocate as a Senior Advocate. It is a
F subjective exercise that is to be performed by the Full Court inasmuch
as a person affected by the refusal of such designation is not heard; nor
are reasons recorded either for conferring the designation or refusing
the same. But the opinion, though subjective, has to be founded on
objective materials. There has to be a full and effective consideration of
the criteria prescribed, namely, ability; standing at the Bar, special
G knowledge or experience in law in the light ofmaterials which necessarily
has to be ascertainable and verifiable facts. In this regard we would like
to reiterate the view expressed by this Court in its report in Tata
Chemicals Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) 4 which
may provide a valuable insight in the matter:
H '(2015) 11 sec 628
MS. INDIRA JAISING v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 525
THROUGH SECRETARY GENERAL [RANJAN GOGOI, J.)
"14. In our opinion, the expression "deems it necessary" obviously A
means that the proper officer must have good reason to subject
imported goods to a chemical or other tests. And, on the facts of
the present case, it is clear that where the importer has furnished
all the necessary documents to support the fact that the ash
content in the coking coal imp01ied is less than 12%, the proper B
officer must, when questioned, state that, at the very least, the
documents produced do not inspire confidence for some good
prima facie reason. In the present case, as has been noted above,
the Revenue has never stated that CASCO's certificate of quality
ought to be rejected or is defective in any manner. This being the
case, it is clear that the entire chemical analysis of the imported C
goods done by the Department was ultra vires Section 18(1 )( h)
of the Customs Act.
15. Statutes often use expressions such as "deems it necessary",
"reason to believe", etc. Suffice it to say that these expressions
have been held not to mean the subjective satisfaction of the D
officer concerned. Such power given to the officer concerned is
not an arbitrary power and has to be exercised in accordance
~ith 'the restraints imposed by law. That this is a well-settled
position of law is clear from the followingjudgments. [See Rohtas
Industries Ltd. v. SD. Agarwal, SCC at p. 341, para 11 : SCR
at p. 129.) To similar effect is the judgment in Sheo Nath Singh E
v. CIT, SCR at p. 182. In that case it was held as under: (SCC p.
239, para I 0)
'J 0. ... There can be no mannerof doubt that the words 'reason
to believe' suggest that the belief must be that of an honest
and reasonable person based upon reasonable grounds and that F
the Income Tax Officer may act on direct or circumstantial
evidence but not on mere suspicion, gossip or rumour. The
Income Tax Officer would be acting without jurisdiction if the
reason for his belief that the conditions are satisfied does not
exist or is not material or relevant to the beliefrequired by the G
section. The Court can always examine this aspect though the
declaration or sufficiency of the reasons for the belief cannot
be investigated by the Court."'
32. What is merit? Is it the academic qualification or brilliance or
is it something more? The matter has been considered earlier by this H
526 SUPRnME COURT REPORTS [2017] JOS.C.R.
A Court in K.K. Parmar vs. High Court o( Gujarat5• Placing reliance on
an. earlier view in Guman Singh vs. State of Rajasthan• it has been
held that:
"27. Merit of a candidate is not his academic qualification. It is
sum total of various qualities. It reflects the attributes of an
B employee. It may be his academic qualification. He might have
achieved ce1iain distinction in the university. It may involve the
character, integrity and devotion to duty of the employee. The
manner in which he discharges his final duties would also be a
relevant factor. (See Guman Singh v. State of Rajasthan.)
c 28. For the purpose of judging the merit, thus, past performance
was a relevant factor. There was no reason as to why the same
had been kept out of consideration by the Selection Committee.
If a selection is based on the merit and suitability, seniority may
have to be given due weightage but it would only be one of the
several factors affecting assessment of merit as comparative
D experience in service should be."
33. 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
E 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
F the Act can be justified. We have also noticed the fact that until the
enactment of the Advocates Act, 1961 and the Supreme Comi 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
G the other, participation in the decision making process of other
stakeholders has been introduced in the light of experience gained. 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
'c2006) s sec 789
H '(1971) 2 sec 452
MS. INDIRA JAISING v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 527.
THROUGH SECRETARY GENERAL [RANJAN GOGOI, J.]
Senior Advocates must provide representation to the community of A
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 B
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 C
dissatisfaction in the matter.
34. A word with regard to minimum age and income as conditions
of eligibility would be appropriate at this stage. From the narration
contained hereinabove with regard to the norms and guidelines prevailing
in different High Courts, it is evident that varying periods of practice and D
different slabs of income have been, inter alia, prescribed as minimum
conditions of eligibility for consideration for designation as a Senior
Advocate. If merit and ability is to be the determining factor, in addition
to standing in the Bar and expertise in any specialized field of law, we do
not see why we should insist on any minimum income as a condition of
eligibility. The income generated by a lawyer would depend on the field E
of his practice and it is possible that a lawyer doing pro bono work or
who specializes in a particular field may generate a lower return of
income than his counterpart who may be working in another field oflaw.
Insistence on any particular income, therefore, may be a self-defeating
(
exercise. Insofar as age is concerned, we are inclined to take the view F
that instead of having a minimum age with a provision ofrelaxation in an
appropriate case it would be better to go by the norm of I 0 years practice
at the Bar which is also what is prescribed by Article 217 of the
Constitution as a condition of eligibility for being considered for
., appointment as a Judge of the High Court.
G
35. It is in the above backdrop that we proceed to venture into the
exercise and lay down the follqwing nonns/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. · H
528 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] JO S.C.R.
A I. All matters relating to designation of Senior Advocates in
the Supreme Court oflndia and in all the High Comts of the
country shall be dealt with by a Permanent Committee to
be known as "Committee for Designation of Senior
Advocates";
B II. The Permanent Committee will be headed by the Hon'ble
the Chief Justice of India and consist of two senior-most
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
c Members of the Permanent Committee will nominate another
Member of the Bar to be the fifth Member of the Permanent
Committee;
III. The said Committee shall have a permanent Secretariat the
composition of which will be decided by the Chief Justice
D oflndia or the Chief Justices of the High Courts, as may be,
in consultation with the other Members of the Permanent
Committee;
IV. All applications including writ\en proposals by the Hon 'blc
Judges will be submitted to the Secretariat. On receipt of
E such applications or proposals from Hon'blc 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-
bona work; repo1ied judgments in which the concerned
F Advocate(s) 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;
v. The Secretariat will publish the proposal of designation of a
G particular Advocate in the official website of the concerned
Court inviting the suggestions/views of other stakeholders
in the proposed designation;
VI. After the data-base 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
H
MS. INDIRA JAISING v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 529
THROUGH SECRETARY GENERAL [RANJAN GOGOI, J.]
particular candidate is collected, the Secretariat shall put up A
the case before the Permanent Committee for scrutiny;
VII. The Permanent Committee will examine each case in the
light of the data provided by the Secretariat of the Permanent
Committee; interview the concerned Advocate; and make
its overall assessment on the basis of a point-based format B
indicated below:
S.NO. Matter Points
I. Number of years of pra,ctice of 20 points
the Applicant Advocate from c
the date of enrolment.
[ 10 points for 10-20 years of
practice; 20 points for practice
beyond 20 years]
D
2. Judgments (Reported and 40 points
unreported) which indicate the
legal formulations advanced by
the concerned Advocate in the
course of the proceedings of the .
case; pro bono work done by E
the concerned Advocate;
domain Expertise of the
Applicant Advocate in various
branches of law, such as
Constitutional Jaw, Inter-State
Water Disputes, Criminal law, F
Arbitration law, Corporate law,
Family law, Human Rights,
Public Interest Litigation,
International Jaw, law relating
to women, etc.
G
3. Publications by the Applicant 15 points
Advocate
4. Test of Personality & 25 points
Suitability on the basis of
interview/interaction
H
530 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 10 S.C.R.
A VIII.All the names that are listed before the Permanent
Committee/cleared by the Permanent Committee will go to
the Full Court.
IX. Voting by secret ballot will not normally be resorted to by
the Full Court except when unavoidable. In the event of
B resmt to secret ballot decisions will be carried by a majority
of the Judges who have chosen to exercise their preforence/
choice.
X. All cases that have not been favourably considered by the
Full Court may be reviewelVreconsidered after expiry of a
c period of two years following the manner indicated above
as if the proposal is being considered afresh:
XI. In the event a Senior Advocate is guilty of conduct which
according to the Full Co wt disentitles the Senior Advocate
concerned to continue to be worthy of the designation the
D Full Court may review its decision to designate the
concerned person and recall the same:
36. 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
E to be gained over a period of time. This is a course of action that we
leave open for consideration by this Co mt at such point of time that the
same becomes necessary.
37. With the aforesaid observations and directions and the
guidelines framed we dispose of the Writ Petition (Civil) No.454of2015.
F
Nidhi Jain Matters disposed of.
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