Case Note & Summary
The judgment pertains to a writ petition filed by Ms. Indira Jaising, a Senior Advocate, under Article 32 of the Constitution of India in 2015, challenging the existing system of designation of Senior Advocates in India. The petitioner argued that the system was flawed as it was not objective, fair, and transparent, and did not take into account considerations of merit and ability. She sought the abandonment of the voting system and its replacement by a permanent Selection Committee. The Supreme Court examined the history and rationale for designation of Senior Advocates, tracing it back to the UK practice of Serjeants-at-Law and King's/Queen's Counsel. The Court noted that the designation is provided by Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961, which classifies advocates into two categories: Senior Advocate and Advocate. Under Section 16(2), the Supreme Court and High Courts have the power to designate an advocate as a Senior Advocate with his consent. In the Supreme Court, this power is exercised under Rule 2 of Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. The Court observed that before the Advocates (Amendment) Act, 1973, the criteria for designation were 'ability, experience and standing at the Bar', which were changed to 'ability, standing at the Bar or special knowledge or experience in law'. The Court noted that the higher judiciary has sole discretion to designate based on these parameters. The Court also noted that in the Supreme Court, applications for Senior Advocates were subject to deliberation by the Full Court and put to vote through secret ballots, and thus the designation was not based on any objective criteria. The Court did not strike down Section 16 or Order IV Rule 2, as the petitioner did not press for that. The judgment appears to be a continuation of the 2017 judgment, dealing with miscellaneous applications and intervention applications. The Court upheld the system of designation with objective criteria and a permanent committee system, dismissing the challenge.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Designation of Senior Advocates - Section 16, Advocates Act, 1961 - The Supreme Court examined the history and rationale for designation of Senior Advocates, tracing it to the UK practice of King's/Queen's Counsel. The Court held that the designation is a privilege awarded as a mark of excellence to advocates who have distinguished themselves. (Paras 1-3) B) Advocates Act - Designation Criteria - Section 16(2), Advocates Act, 1961; Order IV Rule 2, Supreme Court Rules, 2013 - The Court noted that before the 1973 amendment, the criteria were 'ability, experience and standing at the Bar', which were changed to 'ability, standing at the Bar or special knowledge or experience in law'. The Court observed that the higher judiciary has sole discretion to designate based on these parameters. (Paras 4-5) C) Constitutional Law - Writ Petition - Article 32, Constitution of India - Ms. Indira Jaising, Senior Advocate, filed a writ petition in 2015 challenging the existing system of designation as not objective, fair, and transparent. She sought abandonment of the voting system and replacement by a permanent Selection Committee. The Court noted that she did not press for striking down Section 16 or Order IV Rule 2. (Para 8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the existing system of designation of Senior Advocates is flawed and requires replacement by a permanent Selection Committee, and whether the 2017 judgment's directions have been complied with.
Final Decision
The Court dismissed the challenge, upholding the system of designation with objective criteria and a permanent committee system. The Court did not strike down Section 16 of the Advocates Act or Order IV Rule 2 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.
Law Points
- Designation of Senior Advocates
- Section 16 Advocates Act
- 1961
- Objective criteria
- Permanent Selection Committee
- Supreme Court Rules 2013 Order IV Rule 2
