Copyright infringement not intended

Picture Courtesy:   INDIAN EXPRESS 

Context:

Supreme Court scraps points-based system for senior advocate designation, introduces new guidelines for transparency and fairness.

About Senior Advocate Designation

Under Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961, the Supreme Court and High Courts can designate advocates as senior advocates based on their ability, standing at the Bar, or special knowledge and experience in law.

It is a mark of excellence, granting privileges like pre-audience in court (senior advocates are heard before others). However, before 2017, the process was opaque, depending on secret ballots by the Full Court, which Senior Advocate Indira Jaising challenged as arbitrary and prone to nepotism.

In 2017, the Supreme Court, in Indira Jaising v/ Supreme Court of India, introduced a structured system to ensure transparency.

• It establishes a Permanent Committee, chaired by the CJI (or Chief Justice for High Courts), including two senior-most judges, the Attorney General (or Advocate General for High Courts), and a Bar member.
• The committee evaluates candidates using a 100-point system: 20 points for years of practice, 50 for reported and unreported judgments, 5 for publications, and 25 for interviews.
• The Permanent Secretariat compiles applications and data, and the Full Court makes the final decision, ideally without secret ballots unless unavoidable.

Why the Supreme Court Scrapped the Point-Based System?

Subjectivity and Ineffectiveness => The system fails to objectively assess a lawyer’s caliber, standing, or integrity. For example, awarding 20 points for over 20 years of practice prioritizes longevity over merit.

Undermining Dignity => The interview process, carrying 25 points, often lasts a few minutes and may humiliate advocates, failing to measure their suitability.

Disadvantage to Trial Court Lawyers => The emphasis on reported judgments (50 points) favors lawyers in higher courts, as trial court cases are less likely to be reported.

Lack of Focus on Integrity => The system omits specific criteria for evaluating character, honesty, and ethical conduct, which are vital for senior advocates.

Questionable Role of Bar Members => Including the Attorney General, Advocate General, or Bar members in assigning points raises concerns about statutory validity, as Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act grants designation powers solely tothe Courts. Bar members evaluating peers also face potential bias or discomfort.

New Guidelines for Senior Advocate Designation

Full Court Decision => The Full Court of the Supreme Court or High Courts decides designations, bypassing the point-based system.

Permanent Secretariat’s Role => The Secretariat continues to verify applications, compile data (e.g., reputation, conduct, judgments), and forward eligible candidates’ documents to the Full Court.

Consensus or Voting => The Court strives for consensus. If unachievable, it uses democratic voting, with each High Court deciding whether to use a secret ballot based on circumstances.

No Individual Recommendations => Individual judges cannot recommend candidates, ensuring collective decision-making.

Application Process => Advocates can apply, indicating consent, or the Full Court can designate someone without an application.

Minimum Practice Requirement => The 10-year practice requirement remains unchanged.

Diversity and Inclusion => The Court stresses representation for trial court lawyers and those before specialized tribunals.

Must Read Articles: 

Senior Advocates 

Source: 

INDIAN EXPRESS