Supreme Court considers reforms in Senior Advocate designation process

On 20 March 2025, a Special Bench of the Supreme Court reserved judgement in a case concerning the process of conferring senior advocate designations. The Court is examining whether the existing system—evolved through the decisions in Indira Jaising v Supreme Court of India (2017) and Indira Jaising v Supreme Court of India (2023)—requires a “relook” on fairness, transparency and equal opportunity.

The core issue is whether the current system, comprising a points-based evaluation and brief interviews, adequately measures an advocate’s merit and standing in the profession. In Court, several advocates raised concerns about the scope of discretion exercised in the selection process, the role of interviews and whether the framework inadvertently disadvantages certain categories of lawyers, particularly trial court practitioners.

How are Senior Advocates designated in India?

Under the Advocates Act, 1961, the Supreme Court and High Courts can designate senior advocates based on their ability, legal standing at the Bar and expertise. Before 2017, each High Court followed its own criteria, often leading to inconsistencies and lack of uniform standards.​

In 2017, the Supreme Court, acting on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, introduced a structured system, aimed at standardising the designation process. This process had the following components:

• A Permanent Committee comprising the Chief Justice of India, two senior-most judges (of the Supreme Court or High Courts), the Attorney General or Advocate General and a Bar member, to decide designations,
• A point-based evaluation system to assess reported judgements, legal publications, domain expertise and pro bono work and
• A brief interview before the full court.

In 2023, the Supreme Court fine-tuned the framework by modifying the weightage assigned to judgements and publications. Currently, advocates are graded on a scale of 100. The breakdown of marks is: 

1. 20 marks for years of practice, 
2. 50 marks for reported and unreported judgements, pro bono work, and domain expertise, 
3. 5 marks for publications or teaching experiences in the law field,
4. 25 marks for the test of personality and suitability, on the basis of performance in the interview. 

The matter gained fresh momentum on 20 February 2025, when a Division Bench comprising Justices A.S. Oka and A.G. Masih, delivered a judgement in Jitender @ Kalla v State (Govt.) of NCT of Delhi (2025). The judgement raised concerns over several aspects of the designation process after a senior advocate had allegedly misrepresented facts in a case. 

The bench referred the issue to Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna to constitute a larger bench to hear the case. They noted that since both the Indira Jaising decisions in 2017 and 2023 were delivered by three-judge benches, only a larger bench could reconsider them. Following this, a Special Bench comprising Justices Oka, Ujjal Bhuyan, and S.V. Bhatti was constituted to hear the case.

On 25 February 2025, the Special Bench issued notices to all High Courts, seeking their responses and suggestions on whether the framework required further modifications. Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, whose 2017 case laid the foundation for the existing system was present too. She argued that any reconsideration should be undertaken by a bench of at least five-judges to ensure a comprehensive review. Four High Courts—Delhi, Karnataka, Patna and Punjab & Haryana—also submitted recommendations.

Key arguments in Court

The Special Bench heard arguments in the case over two days on 19 and 20 March. The arguments were centred around whether the designation process was truly meritocratic or if it risked being arbitrary. The Bench clarified that it was not reviewing the constitutional validity of Section 16 of the Advocates Act, which creates two classes of advocates—senior advocates and other advocates.

Authority and selection process

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the administrative side of the Supreme Court through its Registrar General, opposed the inclusion of Bar members in the selection process, stating that “no matter what designation, be it Attorney General or [Advocate General], they are not part of the Court.” He contended that only a full court should be able to decide designations. He also recommended scrapping the system where only a few members allocate marks. He further argued that “only the court in which the advocate is practising should designate that advocate” and suggested that “any system where individual judges recommend a certain lawyer to be designated should be dispensed with and stopped.”

Senior Advocate Indira Jaising cautioned against lobbying in the designation process and stated that a “relook has no meaning in law.” She also proposed doing away with the distinction in gowns between senior and junior advocates, arguing that no Bar Council rule mandated it.

Interviews and merit evaluation

Mehta emphasised the need for an objective selection criteria. “Personality cannot be a basis for designation. It is a subjective quality. What has to be seen is how does he perform in court.” Comparing it to evaluating a cricketer, who “is judged only on the ground,” he suggested that courtroom performance should be the primary measure.

Attorney General R. Venkataramani, speaking as a member of the Permanent Committee, defended the existing system but acknowledged the exhaustive nature of evaluations. “I got tired after a while,” he admitted. He supported the Committee’s role in shortlisting candidates but suggested doing away with interviews and adjusting the marking system.

Senior Advocate Vipin Nair, the President of the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA), argued that “the [Indira Jaising I and II] judgements need fine-tuning and not drastic surgery.” He proposed reducing the weightage of interviews and allowing candidates to review their marks before the interaction stage. 

Jaising objected to the 25-mark allocation for interviews, stating that her original petition never proposed an interview-based assessment and had objected when they were introduced. She described the weightage as “disproportionately large” and proposed alternative evaluation metrics, such as mentorship and pro bono work. She cited examples of how the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) handles marks in their exams by declaring cutoff marks after the results come in.

Representation and inclusivity

Mehta highlighted the need for High Courts to consider district court lawyers for senior designation, acknowledging that many advocates choose not to practice in High Courts or the Supreme Court. Advocate Mathews Nedumpara argued that the current senior designation system is “discriminatory” and “unjust”. Presenting a chart listing the designated seniors who were related to former judges or politicians, he asserted that the process disproportionately favored advocates with judicial or political lineage. He also criticised the separate dress code for senior advocates and expressed his firm opposition to the process, stating, “I will never apply for designation.” Earlier this year, the top court had dismissed Nedumpara’s petition challenging the Delhi High Court’s designation of 70 senior advocates. 

Senior Advocate Indira Jaising advocated for “inclusivity and diversity” in senior designations and stated “Let not the door be closed on the aspiring class.” 

Transparency vs confidentiality

Both Jaising and Nedumpara argued that aspects of the senior designation process raised constitutional concerns under Article 14, with Jaising focusing on transparency and inclusivity.

The Bench also scrutinised the allocation of marks for appearing in a judgement. Justice Oka expressed concern over whether court records accurately attributed submissions to specific lawyers, noting, “It is often difficult to ascertain whether an argument was made by the lead counsel or a junior assisting them.”

SG Mehta pushed for the return of the secret ballot, stating that it would ensure “the actual bona fide view of each judge of the full court.” The Delhi, Karnataka, and Punjab &Haryana High Courts also supported the secret ballot system while SCAORA President Vipin Nair opposed it. Jaising argued that a transparent, consensus-based selection method should be the primary approach, but it should not be mandatory. Instead, she recommended that the decision on secret ballots should be left to the full court rather than being mandated through a judicial ruling since this conferment process “is a selection and not election”.

India v global standards

Jaising defended the existing framework but suggested improvements. She provided a historical overview of common law jurisdictions, comparing India’s system with international practices regarding senior advocate positions. 

She detailed the pre-2017 process in India, where judges had the discretion to recommend names and “there was no uniform process” and argued that the system had always involved selection, not just applications. She emphasised that the objective was to recognise legal excellence and ensure litigants had access to top advocates.

She pointed out that in Nigeria, candidates for senior designation are required to submit financial records—not to assess income but to verify proper financial management. She suggested similar criteria for India. However, Justice Oka remarked that “integrity cannot be only in terms of some monetary value,” and stressed that only judges could understand the “integrity” nuances of a lawyer.

SG Mehta cautioned against over-reliance on foreign jurisprudence. Suggesting that we “don’t go by what other countries are doing”, he advocated for the “need to start re-indianising Indian jurisprudence”.

Every year, more advocates are designated as senior advocates—56 in 2024 and 39 the year before. The Court’s decision in this case will determine the process of designations in the future.