Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana High Court’s notification designating 76 lawyers as ‘senior advocates’ has sharply divided the legal fraternity, with the states’ Bar Council questioning the selection process even as the Bar association hailed the move as a “milestone”.
The Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana Thursday called an emergent meeting following complaints of “nepotism and favouritism” in the high court’s 20 October notification. The council has also sought detailed information from the HC about the selection procedure.
A day later, the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association wrote to Chief Justice Sheel Nagu expressing “gratitude” for the “long-awaited” decision, calling it a reflection of the court’s commitment to “recognising merit, talent and professional excellence”.
The contrasting positions have thrust the designation process into controversy, particularly given the unusually large number of advocates elevated in a single notification.
Of 210 applicants in 2024, the high court designated 76 lawyers as ‘senior advocates’, including five women.
Power and jurisdiction
The Bar Council, established under the Advocates Act of 1961, is the more powerful of the two bodies. As an autonomous, parliamentary-backed “body corporate”, it has regulatory powers and critical functions. The Council grants licences for practising lawyers, maintains the roll of all lawyers in Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh, and adjudicates misconduct cases.
The Bar Association is a non-statutory, voluntary body representing high court lawyers that agitates collective interests.
While both are elected bodies, the electoral college of the Council includes all lawyers enrolled in Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh.
The association is elected from amongst lawyers practicing only in the Punjab and Haryana High court. The electorate of the Council is thus larger than that of the association.
Also Read: Don’t rely on AI, Google mid-argument—Punjab & Haryana HC warning divides legal practitioners
Allegations and queries
During Thursday’s meeting, Bar Council members spoke of a “growing concern” over allegations of “favouritism and nepotism” and that proper procedure was not followed in designating senior advocates.
Members also noted that that Council had received complaints from advocates practising in both the high court and district courts, alleging that “several meritorious candidates have been left out while many non-deserving candidates have been designated”.
The council, in a letter to Chief Justice Nagu, has sought information from the HC on key points—the procedure adopted for selection; whether old or new rules were followed and if the process was in consonance with the judgement in Indira Jaising’s case; marks awarded to individual candidates and evaluation criteria; whether marks were published on the website before the court’s decision; whether candidates who had neither filed nor appeared in any case in recent years, or who had hardly appeared in the last two years, were considered; whether the notification was circulated to district and sub-divisional bar associations; and criteria adopted for SC/ST and women candidates.
The council will meet over the issue next on 31 October.
‘Transparent and merit-based’
In his letter to the chief justice, Bar Association secretary Gagandeep Jammu struck a markedly different tone. “This long-awaited decision reflects not only the collective wisdom of the full court but also Chief Justice Sheel Nagu’s sincere commitment to recognising merit, talent, and the professional excellence that exists within our Bar,” he wrote.
“The conferment of the owner of senior advocate upon such a large number of deserving members has infused a renewed sense of pride, motivation and encouragement among advocates across all levels of the profession,” the letter read.
Jammu praised “your Lordships’ thoughtful approach” in considering diverse fields of legal practice—civil, criminal, constitutional and other specialised branches—and described the designation process as “inclusive and representative”.
“The transparent and merit-based assessment undertaken by the committee (the Committee for Designation of Senior Advocates) and the full court has further enhanced the confidence of the legal fraternity in the institutional process and in the fairness of judicial administration,” he added.
The Bar Association acknowledged “with deep appreciation” the high court’s move to bring “this long-pending matter to its rightful culmination”. It called the notification a “milestone” that would “elevate the standards of advocacy” and inspire younger members.
Supreme Court guidelines
The controversy unfolds against the backdrop of revised Supreme Court guidelines issued in May this year. A bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka, Ujjal Bhuyan and S.V.N. Bhatti did away with the points-based assessment system that had been in place since 2017, noting that seven-and-a-half years of experience showed it was not “rationally or objectively possible” to assess advocates’ calibre and experience through points.
The apex court consequently directed high courts to amend their existing rules within four months in line with the new rules.
Also Read: What was the points-based system for designating senior advocates & why SC scrapped it