Indira Jaising vs SC of India

(2017) 9 SCC 766

Introduction:

In the Indira Jaising vs SC of India case the SC framed guidelines to designate lawyers as a Senior Advocate.

Indira Jaising, a senior advocate and a former Solicitor General filed a Public Interest Litigation in the year 2015 where she said that the present system of senior designation as an arbitrary, non-transparent and discriminatory. Hence the process of Senior designation was kept on hold by the Supreme Court since the filing of the PIL.

In the said PIL she prayed:

  1. to issue a writ order, or direction declaring that the system of designation of Senior Advocates by recently introduced method of vote is arbitrary and contrary to the notions of diversity violating Articles 14, 15 and 21 and therefore, it is unconstitutional and null and void; and
  2. to issue a writ order or direction for appointment of a permanent Selection Committee for the designation of Senior Advocates on the basis of an assessment and
  3. to issue a writ of mandamus or direction to appoint a Search Committee to identify the Advocates who conduct Public Interest Litigation (PIL) cases and Advocates who practice in the area of their Domain Expertise viz., constitutional law, international arbitration, 3 inter-State water disputes, cyber laws etc. and to designate them as Senior Advocates;
  4. to issue a writ of mandamus or direction to frame guidelines for designation based on an index 100 points;
  5. to issue a writ of mandamus or direction to reconsider its decision taken in the Full Court held on 11.02.2014 and 23.04.2015 and designate as Senior Advocate all those Advocates whose applications seeking designation had received recommendation by not less than five Judges of the Supreme Court.

 

Whereas similar cases were clubbed with the PIL, viz, Gujrat HC Advocates Association and Meghalaya Bar Association where some of the petitioners demanded that he sec 16 of the Advocates Act to be struck down.

Even one of the petitioners contended that the designation of “Senior Advocate” is against the Art 18 of the Constitution, which says that abolition of granting titles to the Indian Citizens.

Observation by the Supreme Court (2017)

In this case the Supreme Court recognized the need to reform the designation process. Hence a permanent committee was constituted by the SC the court for the designation of Senior Advocates and brought consistency in the process ensured the transparency and fairness of the process and upheld the unbiased nature of the judiciary in India.

The committee will examine and verify the data of the potential candidates, for the designation of Senior Advocates, provided by the Secretariat or the concerned authorities.

The permanent committee shall refer following criteria for selection of Senior Advocate:

Sr No Matter Points
1 Number of years of practice of the Applicant Advocate from the date of enrolment.

[10 points for 10-20 years of practice;

20 points for practice beyond 20 years]

 20 Points
2 Judgments (Reported and unreported) which indicate the legal formulations advanced by the concerned Advocate in the course of the proceedings of the case; pro bono work done by the concerned Advocate; domain Expertise of the Applicant Advocate in various branches of law, such as Constitutional law, Inter-State Water Disputes, Criminal law, Arbitration law, Corporate law, Family law, Human Rights, Public Interest Litigation, International law, law relating to women etc., 40 Points
3 Publications by the Applicant Advocate 15 Points
4 Test of Personality & Suitability on the basis of interview/interaction 25 Points

 

Observation by the Supreme Court (2023)

In order to balance the requirements for designation, the Supreme Court opted to increase the number of points in certain categories while reducing points from others. The Court sought to strengthen the designation process’s general neutrality and transparency while addressing the parties’ complaints. Additionally, observations regarding the status of designation applications pending before the courts were put forward. However, the Court ruled that the new standards must also take into account the older applications.

Conclusion 

The Court highlighted that the Full Court’s authority to designate someone suo motu would not be removed and could still be used for remarkable and outstanding counsel with the Full Court’s consent. The Court also explained that rather than going over the entire ruling, the current procedures were aimed at improving the current standards. In order to ensure a just and merit-based method of determining legal success in India, the Supreme Court’s ruling in the case sought to rectify the weaknesses in the current system of selecting Senior Advocates and enhance the procedure.

Thus the Supreme Court through this gives more clarity over the process which helps the lawyers and the general public to understand the method of selection. Through this decision, the Supreme Court upholds the dignity of the Senior Advocates in obtaining such a title as well as the legal profession overall by largely assisting in restoring public trust in the accessibility, equity, and uniformity of the designation process.