The Supreme Court has embarked on a comprehensive review of the criteria and procedures for conferring the title of ‘Senior Advocate’ within its jurisdiction and across various high courts. This initiative aims to address concerns regarding the existing selection framework and to enhance transparency and fairness in the designation process.
On February 25, 2025, a three-judge bench led by Justice Abhay S. Oka, with Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and S.V.N. Bhatti, convened to deliberate on potential revisions to the current system. The bench has issued notices to key stakeholders, including the Attorney General, the Union government, the Supreme Court Secretary-General, the Bar Council of India, the Supreme Court Bar Association, and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association. These entities have been directed to submit their responses by March 6, 2025. Additionally, high courts have been invited to provide their insights and suggestions by March 7, 2025, based on their experiences with the designation process.
This judicial scrutiny follows a decision on January 20, 2025, where a two-judge bench expressed reservations about certain norms established in the Supreme Court’s 2017 and 2023 judgments concerning the designation of senior advocates. The bench recommended that the matter be referred to the Chief Justice of India for the constitution of a bench with appropriate strength to revisit and possibly revise the existing guidelines.
Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, who has been instrumental in advocating for reforms in the designation process, appeared before the bench to emphasize the necessity of a five-judge bench to reconsider the previous decisions. She contended that a three-judge bench lacks the authority to overturn or modify the rulings of another three-judge bench. The bench acknowledged her submission, stating, “We will hear you on that issue also. It will be open for you to canvass this point.”
The Advocates Act delineates two categories of legal practitioners: advocates and senior advocates. Under Section 16 of the Act, the Supreme Court and high courts possess the authority to designate senior advocates based on criteria such as ability, standing at the bar, and specialized knowledge or experience in law. Historically, the designation process involved a secret ballot by the full court of the Supreme Court or the respective high court. However, concerns about the opacity of this method prompted reforms.
In 2015, Indira Jaising filed a petition challenging the lack of transparency in the designation process, highlighting instances where individuals allegedly secured the senior advocate title through lobbying rather than merit. This led to the Supreme Court’s 2017 judgment, which introduced a points-based system to assess candidates. The evaluation criteria encompassed years of legal practice, contributions to significant judgments, scholarly publications, and pro bono work. A personal interview, accounting for 25 out of 100 points, was also instituted. A permanent committee, chaired by the Chief Justice and including two senior-most judges, the Attorney General or Advocate General, and a nominee from the bar, was established to oversee the assessment. The full court would then confer the designation based on the committee’s recommendations.
Tharoor Dismisses BJP Switch Amidst Party Tensions 