The Supreme Court critically examined the procedure for designation of Senior Advocates under Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961, highlighting issues with interviews, point-based evaluation, and secret ballot voting. It emphasized transparency, objectivity, and uniformity in the designation process and referred the matter to the Chief Justice for reconsideration.
Facts Of The Case:
The case revolves around the process of designating Senior Advocates under Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961, as interpreted and modified by the Supreme Court in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (2017) and subsequent judgments. The issue arose when concerns were raised about the effectiveness and fairness of the guidelines laid down in *Indira Jaising-1* and *Indira Jaising-2*, particularly after instances of misconduct by a designated Senior Advocate came to light.
The Supreme Court, in Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2025), flagged several flaws in the existing system, including the subjectivity of the point-based assessment, the impracticality of evaluating voluminous documents, and the lack of emphasis on integrity and standing at the Bar. The Court also questioned the involvement of Bar members in the decision-making process and the dignity of subjecting senior lawyers to interviews. The matter was referred to a larger bench for reconsideration, leading to the current judgment, which seeks to streamline the designation process by emphasizing transparency, objectivity, and the need for periodic review while upholding the statutory criteria of ability, standing at the Bar, and special knowledge of law.
Procedural History:
The case originated from a writ petition filed by Ms. Indira Jaising under Article 32 of the Constitution, challenging the designation process of Senior Advocates under Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961. In Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (2017) (*Indira Jaising-1*), the Supreme Court upheld the validity of Section 16 but introduced guidelines under Article 142 to ensure uniformity, transparency, and objectivity in the designation process. These guidelines included the formation of a Permanent Committee headed by the Chief Justice of India (or the respective High Court Chief Justice) to evaluate candidates based on a 100-point system, considering factors such as years of practice, reported judgments, publications, and an interview. The Court acknowledged that the guidelines might require future modifications based on experience.
Subsequently, in *Indira Jaising-2* (2023), the Supreme Court modified certain aspects of the guidelines, such as adjusting the weightage for publications and interviews, and reiterating that secret ballots should remain an exception. The Court emphasized that the process of improvement was continuous. However, concerns arose in Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2025), where the conduct of a recently designated Senior Advocate led to doubts about the effectiveness of the Indira Jaising framework. A two-judge bench flagged issues such as the subjectivity of interviews, the impracticality of assessing voluminous case records, and the lack of emphasis on integrity in the point-based system. The matter was referred to a larger bench for reconsideration.
The larger bench, in its judgment, critically examined the flaws in the 100-point assessment system, noting that it failed to objectively evaluate an advocate’s standing, integrity, and courtroom performance. The Court held that the Permanent Committee’s involvement of Bar members in decision-making was inconsistent with Section 16(2), which vests designation authority solely in the judiciary. It also found interviews demeaning to senior advocates and impractical for assessing suitability. Consequently, the bench directed the discontinuation of the point-based system and mandated High Courts to frame new rules within four months, ensuring transparency, inclusivity, and periodic review. The Court upheld the requirement of a minimum 10 years of practice but left the decision-making process (including secret ballots) to the Full Court’s discretion. Existing designation processes initiated under *Indira Jaising-1* and *-2* were allowed to conclude, but future processes were to follow the new framework. The judgment emphasized continuous improvement and credited Ms. Jaising for initiating the debate on reforming the designation system.
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court made several critical observations in its judgment, highlighting the shortcomings of the existing system for designating Senior Advocates. The Court noted that the 100-point assessment framework introduced in *Indira Jaising-1* (2017) had failed to achieve its intended objectives of objectivity and transparency. It observed that the system was inherently flawed, as it mechanically awarded points for factors such as years of practice, publications, and interviews without adequately assessing an advocate’s true standing at the Bar, integrity, or courtroom competence. The Court found that the interview process, which carried significant weightage, was not only demeaning to senior advocates but also ineffective in evaluating their professional suitability, as a brief interaction could not capture their long-term contributions or ethical conduct.
The judgment further criticized the involvement of members of the Bar in the Permanent Committee, stating that it was inconsistent with the statutory scheme of Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, which vests the power of designation solely in the judiciary. The Court expressed concern that the current system did not sufficiently account for advocates practicing in trial courts and specialized tribunals, thereby creating an unfair monopoly for those appearing in higher constitutional courts. It also pointed out the impracticality of expecting judges and committee members to thoroughly review voluminous case records and publications submitted by applicants, leading to subjective and inconsistent evaluations.
Additionally, the Court observed that the absence of a mechanism to deduct marks for professional misconduct or lack of integrity was a serious flaw, as it allowed advocates with questionable ethics to secure high scores based on superficial criteria. The judgment emphasized that designation should not be reduced to a mere selection process but should instead reflect a genuine recognition of an advocate’s ability, standing, and contribution to the legal profession. The Court concluded that the existing guidelines required a fundamental overhaul to restore dignity, fairness, and inclusivity in the designation process, urging High Courts to frame new rules that prioritize merit, diversity, and periodic review.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court, in its final judgment, directed a significant overhaul of the existing system for designating Senior Advocates under Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961. The Court held that the 100-point assessment framework established in *Indira Jaising-1* (2017) and modified in *Indira Jaising-2* (2023) had failed to achieve its intended objectives of objectivity and transparency, and accordingly discontinued its implementation. The Bench emphasized that designation must remain a privilege conferred by the judiciary based on merit, rather than a right claimed through applications, and stressed that the process should uphold the dignity of the legal profession. The Court mandated that all High Courts frame new rules within four months, ensuring that the Full Court—rather than a Permanent Committee—retains ultimate authority in the designation process, with due consideration given to advocates practicing across all levels of the judiciary, including trial courts and specialized tribunals.
The judgment clarified that while applications for designation may continue for practical reasons, the Full Court retains the discretion to designate deserving advocates suo motu, provided their consent is obtained. The Court discouraged individual judges from making recommendations and left it to the Full Court to decide whether voting should be conducted openly or by secret ballot in cases where consensus cannot be reached. The minimum requirement of 10 years of practice was upheld, but the Court emphasized that mere longevity should not be the sole criterion—instead, an advocate’s ability, standing at the Bar, and specialized knowledge must be the focal points. The ruling also called for periodic reviews of the designation process to ensure fairness and inclusivity, particularly for first-generation lawyers, women, and advocates from marginalized backgrounds.
Pending designation processes initiated under the Indira Jaising framework were permitted to conclude, but future exercises were to be conducted under the new rules. The Court commended Ms. Indira Jaising for her role in initiating this critical debate and expressed hope that the reforms would restore the prestige of Senior Advocate designations while ensuring that only the most deserving members of the Bar are recognized. The interlocutory applications seeking modifications to the existing guidelines were disposed of in accordance with these directions, marking a decisive shift toward a more principled and transparent system.
Case Details:
Case Title: Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Citation: 2025 INSC 667 Criminal Appeal No.: Criminal Appeal No. 865 of 2025 (along with connected matters, including Writ Petition (Civil) No. 454 of 2015 and Interlocutory Applications) Date of Judgment: May 13, 2025 Bench: Justice Abhay S. Oka (Author of the Judgment) & Justice Ujjal Bhuyan & Justice S.V.N. Bhatti
Download The Judgement Here