The administrative side of the Supreme Court has asked a Special Bench to review the Indira Jaising judgment of 2017, governing the designation of lawyers as Senior Advocates.
Representing the Apex Court, Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta made arguments on Wednesday before the Special Bench of Justice AS Oka, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice SVN Bhatti, which is hearing the issue of reconsidering the process for the designation of Senior Advocates.
The top court of the country had earlier sought responses from its administrative side, along with all High Courts, on the matter. Four High Courts across the country had submitted their suggestions on the issue.
The present procedure of conferring senior designations was put in place by the Supreme Court and various High Courts, pursuant to a verdict delivered by the Apex Court in the case of Indira Jaising vs Supreme Court. The judgement was passed on a petition filed by Senior Advocate Indira Jaising seeking greater transparency and objectivity in senior designations.
Since 2017, there have been calls seeking amendments to the verdict. The Apex Court is also considering the issue in the case of Jitender@Kalla vs State of NCT of Delhi.
On March 19, SG Mehta sought a relook of the Indira Jaising 1 and 2 judgments. He suggested that the court in which an Advocate was practicing, should only decide on his/her designation as Senior Advocate.
He said any system, wherein an individual judge or judges recommended the designation of a certain lawyer on the basis of marks like a Collegium, should be stopped altogether. The Supreme Court as a whole should decide on conferring the senior gown, he added.
SG Mehta further said that the major factor to be considered for designation should be the lawyer’s performance in court. He also called for secret ballot voting to avoid manipulation and lobbying.
He said a personality could not be a basis for designation since it was a subjective quality. All judges were humans and it was a human tendency not to displease another person without genuine reason. Transparent marking was only possible with a secret ballot.
He further mentioned that during a full court meeting, he would receive messages, stating that a particular judge objected to the name of a lawyer being recommended for senior designation. The system should be simple and incapable of manipulation, added the SG.
Senior Advocate Jaising said lobbying should be stopped.
Siding with her, SG Mehta said persuasive manipulation also has to stop.
Noting that every High Court had rule-making powers, the Special Bench asked whether the same could be denuded by the Supreme Court by issuing directions under Article 142 of the Constitution.The arguments were also made on who could apply for the senior gown rather than the court conferring the same voluntarily.
SG Mehta said there could be a secretariat. Anyone wanting to become a senior could apply, he added.
The Bench pointed out that there were four eminent lawyers who never applied for senior designation and were assisted by a senior counsel.
SG Mehta said that in Gujarat, Advocate SB Vakeel did not apply and was assisted by Senior Advocates. This was because many did not want to be interviewed.
The Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) opposed the Supreme Court’s suggestion to re-examine the judgment.
Noting that certain aspects of the verdict needed fine-tuning, SCAORA President Vipin Nair said there was no need for a complete overhaul.
He said the interview portion must stay, however, the marks could be given less weightage, the articles part should stay. These all have been upheld, he added.
The SCAORA President further took objection to the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court on March 19, 2025 in a separate matter restricting the marking of appearance of lawyers in order sheets to only those lawyers who have argued the matter and not those who have assisted or done research for the case.
Senior Advocate Jaising supported the idea to do away with the distinction between Senior Advocates and other advocates. She specifically objected to the special gown that Senior Advocates wore.
Noting that she was not wearing her gown, the Senior Counsel said it did make her arguments count any less. It was time to do away with the gown. There should not be any distinction between senior and non-senior gowns. The Bar Council also has no such prescriptions, she added.
The Senior Advocate further said that the Court was hearing the present case as review of the Indira Jaising judgment, though nobody had officially filed any review petition.
She noted that the grounds of review have to be articulated and the procedure needs to be followed.
Attorney General (AG) R Venkataramani said that the conferring of senior designation must be done on the basis of well-settled principles.
The Special Bench pointed out the difficulties faced by a judge when evaluating lawyers for the senior gown, particularly the time taken for the task.