New Delhi: The Supreme Court has scrapped the points-based system of designating senior advocates and issued a new set of guidelines since the existing process was not “workable”.
The top court, in the process, virtually overruled its previous judgements that introduced the points-based mechanism to confer senior designation to lawyers.
“The decision to confer designation shall be of the Full Court of the High Courts or this Court,” a three-judge bench of Justices A.S. Oka, Ujjal Bhuyan and S.V.N. Bhatti mentioned in an 89-page ruling Tuesday, while deciding a criminal appeal in the case of Jitender @ Kalla vs Govt of NCT of Delhi.
One of the points that had come up before the bench was instances of senior advocates misleading the courts. An advocate who performs well in the interview and scores well in other categories may still be designated, even if he or she has a reputation for misleading the court or has been held guilty of contempt, those arguing against the points-based system had said.
Present ruling & how it compares to previous position
“The applications of all candidates found to be eligible by the Permanent Secretariat along with relevant documents submitted by the applicants shall be placed before the Full House. An endeavour can always be made to arrive at consensus. However, if a consensus on designation of Advocates is not arrived at, the decision-making must be by a democratic method of voting,” the court said in its 89-page ruling, while clarifying the method which would prevail.
The Supreme Court had laid down rules for designations in judgments in 2017 and 2023. It was way back in 2017, when the top court had come up with the 100 point-based system to assess legal publications by advocates, domain expertise, personality test, among other criteria for their selection.
The apex court had then set up a Permanent Committee, also referred to as the Committee for Designation of Senior Advocates, which would select candidates based on these criteria. At the apex court level, this committee was led by the CJI, and included two seniormost SC judges, and the Attorney General of India. For HCs, the panel includes the respective CJs, two senior-most judges and the Advocate General.
But on Tuesday, the SC bench said that the system of 100 point-based assessment “has not achieved the desired objectives” and is not “flawless”.
The apex court reiterated that ability, standing at the Bar, and special knowledge of law are all important considerations for becoming a senior advocate. It also emphasised the importance of the members of the Bar practicing in trial and district courts, and how they should be considered for designation at par with their counterparts practicing before HCs and the SC.
“When we talk of diversity, we must ensure that the High Courts evolve a mechanism by which the members of the Bar practicing in our trial and district judiciary and before specialised tribunals are considered for designation, as their role is not inferior to the role played by advocates practicing before this court and high courts,” the court remarked.
Although certain considerations like minimum qualification of 10 years of practice still remain intact, the court ruled that “every endeavour shall be made to improve the regime/system of designation by periodically reviewing” it.
Expert view
Terming this judgment a “significant” one, senior advocate Vikas Pahwa told ThePrint that it was a welcome course correction. “The court has rightly acknowledged that the earlier 100-point system—though introduced with good intentions—became unduly rigid and subjective over time. Legal excellence cannot be reduced to numerical parameters or mechanical scoring, and this decision restores the dignity and seriousness that the designation demands,” Pahwa said.
The senior advocate went on to add that by reaffirming the role of the full court and disallowing individual recommendations by judges, the judgment ensures institutional integrity, transparency, and collective responsibility. “It has opened the door to a more inclusive approach by recognising the need to give space to advocates practicing in trial courts—who are often overlooked despite their immense merit and contribution,” he added.
Pahwa added that equally notable is the court’s decision to retain a permanent committee for screening applications, but with a purely facilitative and non-evaluative role. “This preserves efficiency without undermining the central role of judicial discretion and deliberation.”
Meanwhile, senior advocate Percival Billimoria told ThePrint that the Supreme Court’s present decision remedies the earlier position to a large extent. “Traditionally a Senior Advocate had the responsibility to train and mentor the juniors in his chamber. Once they are ready the Senior Advocate would meet the Chief Justice over a cup of tea and say in his opinion the junior is ready to be “called to the bar” … this places a lot of responsibility on the chamber,” he said.
This system has eroded unfortunately, Billimoria added, noting the system of an “application” was a huge dent. “However any criteria which requires marks to be allotted is inherently subjective. This decision now remedies the position to a large extent.”
On the other hand, senior advocate Ritzu Ghoshal recalled how earlier, different courts used to have different systems of designating seniors, and this was intended to be replaced by a uniform system in the 2017 Indira Jaising.
“The whole exercise used to be entirely subjective. Up until the late 90s, the court would choose (advocates) from the Bar. Around 2006-2007 onwards, the system of applications started. However, with the 2017 and 2023 rulings, the entire process has undergone a lot of change, and has become more transparent since then,” Ghoshal said.
What the law says
Simply put, the top court or high courts have the power to confer advocates with the ‘senior” designation.
Back in 2017, senior advocate Indira Jaising had challenged both Section 16 of the Advocates Act, along with a challenge to Order IV Rule 2 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1996.
The latter provision says that the Chief Justice and the Judges may, with the consent of the advocate, designate him/her as senior advocate if in their opinion by virtue of ability, standing at the Bar or special knowledge or experience in law, he/she is deserving of such distinction.
Challenging these provisions, the Gujarat High Court association, one of the intervenors in the case, had argued that such segregation or differentiation between two classes of advocates is not based on any reasonable or acceptable basis, and violates Articles 14 and 18, which relate to the right to equality and abolition of titles, of the Constitution.
However, the court upheld the validity of these provisions, and came out with the first set of guidelines for designating senior advocates.
Six years later, the question came back before the Supreme Court in the case of Indira Jaising vs Supreme Court (2023), where the court came up with fresh guidelines for the designation of seniors. Among the notable features of the decision was that voting by secret ballot should not be a rule, but an exception. And, in case the full court went for it, the reasons for it should be recorded.
Moreover, while the earlier 2017 guidelines had not prescribed any minimum age, the new guidelines said the minimum age for conferment as a senior is 45 years.
Another factor to be noted was that while the 2017 guidelines allowed the Chief Justice of India (CJI) to appoint senior advocates, in consultation with “any judge”, the 2023 guidelines modified this to say that the CJI, along with a SC judge, will appoint the senior advocates.
Finally, the weightage of marks accorded for publications were reduced from 15 marks to 5 marks, indicating a decrease of 10 marks from the earlier figure.
(Edited by Tony Rai)