Not just a title: India’s Senior Advocate system in global perspective

On 20 March 2025, the Supreme Court reserved judgement in a case that could redefine the procedure by which lawyers are designated as Senior Advocates. The case addresses the revived concerns about transparency, fairness and subjectivity in the current process, evolved and modified by the Court two times prior—once in 2017 and next in 2023. 

India is not the only country that designates Senior Advocates. Globally, across jurisdictions, titles such as Senior Advocate, King’s Counsel, Senior Counsel or President’s Counsel are granted to notable lawyers. These designations are just labels or titles. They carry courtroom privileges, denote professional standing and are viewed as markers of distinction and ethical responsibility. 

The process differs across countries, based on factors such as constitutional design and colonial history. Some countries rely on independent bodies and merit-based assessments; others still lean heavily on executive or judicial discretion. 

Here’s a comparative glance at the selection mechanism in India and other countries:

India

In India, the designation of Senior Advocate is based on Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961, which recognises two classes of advocates: Senior Advocates and other advocates. The Supreme Court or high courts confer designation to lawyers who, in their opinion, possess “ability, standing at the Bar or specialised knowledge or experience in law.” 

According to the Bar Council of India Rules (1965), Senior Advocates are subject to certain restrictions—they cannot file vakalatnamas, draft pleadings, or appear without an Advocate-on-Record. These “restrictions” actually work as privileges, the idea harking back to the old colonial distinction between solicitors taking care of the paperwork and barristers arguing the matter in front of benches. In a more obvious sign of the Senior Advocate’s exalted position, their black gowns have a flap at the back to distinguish them from other counsels.

In its ruling in Indira Jaising v Supreme Court of India in 2017, the Court introduced structured guidelines to streamline the designation process. A Permanent Committee comprising the CJI, two senior-most judges, the Attorney General and a nominated member of the Bar, screens applications through a point-based evaluation system. 

The considerations include: years of practice, number of reported and unreported judgements, publications, pro bono work and interview performance. A full court makes the final decision based on a majority vote. In Indira Jaising v Supreme Court of India (2023), the process was further fine-tuned by modifying the weightage assigned to judgements and publications.

The March 2025 case emerged amid allegations of opacity and lobbying in the designation process. Over two days, a Special Bench led by Justice A.S. Oka heard arguments from a battery of lawyers. Jaising, the petitioner in the original case, pushed for scrapping the senior-junior distinction altogether, calling it discriminatory and hierarchical. She highlighted that Bar Council rules do not mandate separate attire and criticised the culture of lobbying for designation.

The Court is now weighing whether the existing system—point-based screening followed by a full-court vote—needs an overhaul or should be abolished entirely. 

United Kingdom

In the UK, counsel may be designated as King’s Counsel (KC) or Queen’s Counsel (QC), depending on who the monarch is. The practice dates back to 1597, making it one of the oldest title designations in the world. 

The designation is symbolically referred to as “taking silk” due to the distinctive silk gowns worn by KCs in the courts. It is awarded to barristers and solicitor-advocates who demonstrate excellence in advocacy. Since 1995, solicitors who have obtained higher rights of audience—qualifying them as solicitor-advocates—are also eligible to apply for appointment as KCs. 

The process for selecting KCs is overseen by the Selection Panel, an independent body comprising members from the judiciary, senior barristers, solicitors and laymen. The process involves a written application, client and judicial references and a rigorous interview round.

The Selection Panel then recommends qualifying applicants to the Lord Chancellor (equivalent to a law minister), who advises the King or Queen to confirm the appointments. 

As of January 2025, the appointment of 105 new KCs in England and Wales was approved by King Charles III. The total number of appointments this year was the highest in four years. 

Australia 

Depending on the state or territory, the titles of Senior Counsel (SC) and King’s Counsel (KC) are used in Australia. Since the early 1990s, several federated states like New South Wales (1993), Queensland (1994), Victoria (2000), Tasmania (2005) adopted the SC title to reflect an independent Australian legal identity. The Australian Capital Territory adopted the title in 1995. 

Notably, in 2013, Queensland reinstated the QC title (it had recognised QC for nearly 150 years before switching to SC in 1994), as it is more widely recognisable and Victoria followed suit in 2014. In 2024, South Australia abolished the KC title in favour of SC. 

In Australia, the appointment of SCs or KCs varies by state and territory. In New South Wales, the Selection Committee comprises the President and Senior Vice President of the Bar Association, four Senior Counsels nominated by the President and approved by the Bar Council, one non-practising legal professional and one non-lawyer community member who oversees the appointment process. Once the Committee makes its final selection, it informs the Chief Justice for approval. 

In Victoria, the appointment of Senior Counsel is overseen by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, assisted first by a Preliminary Evaluation Committee comprising Bar Council leaders, up to 10 Senior Counsels, a retired superior court judge and three solicitors from diverse practice areas. This Committee assesses all applicants and prepares a confidential shortlist. 

A second body, the Silks Advisory Committee—composed of judges from the Supreme Court, Federal Court, County Court and relevant tribunals—then considers this shortlist alongside application materials and extensive consultations. The Chief Justice also seeks input from heads of key legal bodies and prosecutorial offices. 

In Queensland, the appointment of KC involves deliberations between the Bar Association and the judiciary, culminating in recommendations by the Chief Justice. Since 2013, appointments have been made by the Governor in Council and announced by the Attorney-General. 

In 2024, New South Wales named 26 new Senior Counsel, Victoria appointed 25, South Australia appointed three and Queensland designated eight new KCs. 

Singapore

Singapore’s SC system, introduced in 1989, was initially modelled on the UK’s KC/QC framework. However, the composition of the Selection Committee changed over time. At present, the Selection Committee does not have any representation from outside the legal profession. Appointments are made by a Committee comprising the Chief Justice, the Attorney-General and the Justices of the Court of Appeal who may appoint an advocate and solicitor, a Judicial Service Officer or a Legal Service Officer as Senior Counsel if they are “of the opinion that the person’s ability, standing at the Bar, or special knowledge or experience in law, merits such distinction.” 

In January 2024, the Chief Justice of Singapore announced no appointments for the year, citing a refined selection criteria as the reason, with “greater emphasis on the applicants’ work that has tangibly contributed to the development of Singapore law, and on their contributions to the profession.”

As of January this year, Singapore has 100 senior counsel among 6438 legal practitioners and 82 of them are still in practice. In terms of court attire, SCs in Singapore may wear a silk gown styled like the UK’s KC/QCs. 

Hong Kong

In June 2022, Andrew Cheung Kui-nung, the Chief Justice of Hong Kong, stated that their legal system “is designed on the premise that successful senior counsel… would one day become judges, thereby contributing their excellence to the judiciary for the benefit of a legal system by which they have been given so much.”

Following the handover of sovereignty from the UK to China in 1997, Hong Kong replaced QC with the title of SC. Previously, the “appointments were made under the Governor’s prerogative power on the recommendation of the Chief Justice.” Since 1997, the appointments have been made under Section 31A of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance, which lays down the eligibility requirements and confers on the Chief Justice the discretionary power to make the appointments “after consultation with the Chairman of the Bar Council and the President of the Law Society.” 

As of January 2025, there are approximately 108 Senior Counsel among Hong Kong’s 1700 practising barristers. 

Hong Kong’s judges and barristers still wear traditional black gowns and wigs—a colonial custom that even the UK is moving away from. Senior Counsel wear silk gowns, as in the UK and Singapore. 

Ireland

In Ireland, appointment as Senior Counsel is also referred to as being “called to the Inner Bar”. 

The title of Senior Counsel in Ireland has its origins in the early 20th century, following the nation’s independence. After the establishment of the Irish Free State, the Courts of Justice Act 1924 came into being, as part of a broader effort to create an independent legal system. After this, the formalised practice of electing Senior Counsel has been that the Chief Justice calls members to the Inner Bar, who are described as Senior Counsel.

As was the case in the UK, only barristers could be appointed as Senior Counsel in Ireland. However, in 2020, Ireland allowed solicitors to apply. Ireland’s scheme is “also open to transactional and advisory lawyers.”

The process for appointing Senior Counsel in Ireland involves an Advisory Committee composed of the Chief Justice, the Presidents of the Court of Appeal and High Court, the Attorney General, chairperson of the Bar Council, president of the Law Society and a lay member of the Legal Services Regulatory Authority who is nominated by the Minister of Justice. The Advisory Committee assesses applications and makes recommendations to the Government, which then confers the title of Senior Counsel. 

In 2022, for the first time, more women than men were appointed as Senior Counsel: 20 of the 34 appointees were women. In October 2024, the Bar of Ireland called 27 members to the Inner Bar, bringing the total number of Senior Counsels to 389, of whom 21 percent are women.

Nigeria

The title of Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) is conferred by the Legal Practitioners’ Privileges Committee (LPPC), which includes:

1. The Chief Justice (as chairperson) 
2. The next senior-most Supreme Court judge, 
3. President of the Court of Appeal, 
4. Attorney-General of the Federation, 
5. Chief Judges of the Federal High Court and the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory and 
6. Five Senior Advocates of Nigeria. 

The LPPC “exercises full control and management” of the entire appointment process, with no role for the executive. Applicants are assessed based on their case records, integrity, professional conduct and consistent evidence of excellence.

SANs enjoy the privilege of sitting in the ‘Inner Bar’, the front row of seats in a courtroom. Junior advocates sit in the ‘Outer Bar’ behind the front row. Customarily, SANs can also have their cases called first or whenever they step into court.

As of May 2022, only 693 lawyers had received the title since it was introduced in 1975. 

Sri Lanka

The title President’s Counsel (PC) replaced the Queen’s Counsel title when Sri Lanka became a republic in 1972. PCs are appointed by the President under Article 33 of the Constitution, which gives the President unfettered discretion in making these appointments. While recommendations are typically made by the Chief Justice, Attorney General and the President of the Bar Association of Sri Lanka and four President’s Counsels, these are purely advisory. The President can accept, reject or return these recommendations. 

In 2021, then-President Gotabaya Rajapaksa issued new guidelines in relation to the appointment of the President’s Counsel. It stated that candidates applying for the post must have been enrolled for a minimum period of 20 years as an Attorney-at-Law of the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka. In exceptional cases, those with at least 15 years of experience may be considered. 

In December 2023, President Ranil Wickremesinghe appointed ten lawyers as President’s Counsel.

Conclusion: conferring more than designation

A common thread in Senior Advocate designations across common law jurisdictions is that while these titles are seen as markers of legal distinction and professional excellence, they also serve to concentrate power and privilege. The appointment itself elevates an individual within the legal community, bringing both greater influence and responsibility.

While some common law countries like Ireland have moved towards hybrid panels comprising judges, lawyers and laypersons— insulating the process from undue influence—others like Sri Lanka vest the final say in the executive, who may override recommendations from the judiciary and the Bar.

In the UK, the judiciary does not directly appoint KCs. The independent selection panel handles appointments which are then formally bestowed by a cabinet minister, reinforcing public confidence that selections are merit-based. 

Nigeria’s system, while also judicially-led, is institutionalised through a structured committee with representation from various tiers of the judiciary and several experienced members of the Bar. 

Comparatively, India’s system is too heavily skewed towards the judiciary. For Supreme Court designations, a full court votes on candidates shortlisted by a committee comprising three judges and only two lawyers (one of whom is the Attorney General).

Eight years ago, Indira Jaising cracked open the doors of a process long shrouded in secrecy. Now, as we wait for the Supreme Court’s verdict again, the question is not just who gets in, but whether the system has changed enough to let merit speak louder than legacy.