New guidelines for designation of senior advocates in the SC: What they say

Contact Counsellor

CategoryPolity

Last Updated19/07/2023

The Supreme Court has published new guidelines for the designation of senior advocates practising mainly in the Apex Court.
These guidelines came after the May 12 ruling delivered by a three-judge bench led by Justice SK Kaul

They prescribe the minimum age as 45 years to apply for the ‘senior advocate’ designation. This age limit may, however, be relaxed by the Committee, the Chief Justice of India, or a Supreme Court judge if they have recommended an advocate’s name.
The 2023 guidelines specify that the CJI along with “any Judge of the Supreme Court” may recommend in writing the name of an advocate for designation.
Only 5 marks will be given for “publication of academic articles, experience of teaching assignments in the field of law,” and “guest lectures delivered in law schools and professional institutions connected with law” combined.
The weightage given to reported and unreported judgements (excluding orders that do not lay down any principle of law) has increased from 40 to 50 points in the new guidelines.

No minimum age was prescribed under the 2017 guidelines or even the May 12 SC ruling leaving the final decision in the hands of the Permanent Committee and the Full Court.
The 2017 guidelines said that the CJI along with “any judge” can recommend an advocate’s name for designation
The guidelines stated that 15 marks were set aside for publications.
This direction was also laid down in the May 12 ruling.

In October 2018, the Apex Court released a list of “Guidelines to Regulate the Conferment of Designation of Senior Advocates”
It created a “Committee for Designation of Senior Advocates,” or “permanent committee,” and empowered it with powers of conferment.
The CJI-chaired committee was to consist of two senior-most SC judges, the Attorney General of India, and a “member of the Bar” nominated by the chair and other members.
The Committee was to meet twice a year, at least.
The CJI or any other judge could recommend the name of an advocate for designation. Alternatively, advocates could submit their applications to the “Permanent Secretariat”, which would evaluate them on criterias like 10-20 years of legal practice
The guidelines discouraged the system of ‘voting by secret ballot”, except in cases where it was “unavoidable.”

On October 12, 2017, a three-judge bench of the Apex Court headed by then-Justice Ranjan Gogoi laid down guidelines for itself and all High Courts on the process of designating senior advocates.
It was this ruling that decided the setting up of a “permanent committee” and a “permanent secretariat”
- Prior to this, Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961, governed the appointment of senior advocates.
- It defined two classes of advocates, namely, senior advocates and other advocates.”
- Besides this, it allowed an advocate to be designated as a senior advocate if he consented to it and “if the Supreme Court or a High Court” was of the opinion that by “virtue of his ability, standing at the Bar, or special knowledge or experience in law, “he is deserving of such distinction.”
- Further, it was the Chief Justice and the judges who designated an advocate as a ‘senior’ advocate.

The 2017 guidelines are not exhaustive and left them “open for consideration by the Court at such a point of time that the same becomes necessary.”
The Centre argued that the point based system for designation is subjective, ineffective, and dilutes the “esteem and dignity of the honour being conferred traditionally.”
The current requirements for designation are “extraneous” and have resulted in “ousting otherwise eligible candidates” based on factors that are “not germane to the issue of being designated as a Senior Advocate.
Finally,it sought to reinstate the rule of a simple majority by a secret ballot, where the judges can express their views about the suitability of any candidate “without any embarrassment”