Supreme Court Questions UP Senior Advocate Designation Case, Citing Serious Concerns Over Process Integrity

On February 20, 2025, the Supreme Court of India expressed concerns regarding the current system for the Senior Advocate designation, which was previously outlined in the Indira Jaising case in 2017 and revised again in 2023. This system, which evaluates advocates for seniority based on a points-based approach and interviews, has now come under scrutiny for several reasons. The Court emphasized that its purpose was not to undermine these two landmark judgments, but to express concerns that could prompt the Chief Justice of India to refer the matter to a larger bench for further consideration.

Key Concerns Raised by the Bench

1. Issue with Self-Application for Designation:

• The bench questioned whether advocates should be allowed to apply for the Senior Advocate designation. Referring to Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, the Court pointed out that designations are privileges conferred by the Supreme Court or High Courts, not something that can be sought by an advocate.
• “The question is whether a person can seek something which has to be conferred,” the bench remarked.

2. Validity of Interview Process:

• The bench cast doubts on the interview process for the designation, which currently accounts for 25 pointsout of a 100-point system. The process of interviewing candidates for only a few minutes, the Court noted, may not sufficiently assess their personality or suitability.
• “It is doubtful whether by interviewing a candidate for a few minutes, his personality and suitability can be tested,” they stated.

3. Concerns About Points-Based Assessment:

• The Court raised concerns about the points-based formula currently used to evaluate candidates. While it is designed to assess integrity, experience, and other factors, the system doesn't allow the Permanent Committee to reduce points if an advocate has unresolved complaints or lacks integrity.
• “No one can dispute that an advocate who lacks integrity or fairness is entitled to designation,” the bench observed, noting that there are no provisions to penalize such advocates if they perform well in interviews or other aspects of the evaluation.

4. Difficulty in Reviewing Judgments and Publications:

• Another issue raised was the burden on the Permanent Committee of reviewing numerous judgments and publications submitted by candidates. Given the number of submissions and the limited time of the five-member Permanent Committee, the bench questioned whether such an intensive review process was practical.
• “Whether the 5 members of the Permanent Committee are expected to go through every judgment submitted by the candidate to assign 50 marks or assign marks for publication” was flagged as a significant concern.

5. Potential Defects in the Points System:

• The Court noted that the points-based assessment might be flawed, suggesting that it might not fully capture the merit or qualifications of candidates for Senior Advocate designation.
• The bench emphasized the need for a more accurate method of evaluating an advocate’s standing at the Barand overall competence.

6. Inadequate Consideration of Active Practice:

• The Court pointed out that points for years of practice are assigned mechanically, without taking into account the candidate's active practice or standing at the Bar. This oversight could affect the quality of the selection process.

7. Risk of Compromising the Dignity of Advocates:

• The Court noted that the interview process could potentially compromise the dignity of the advocate, transforming the process into a selection procedure rather than a designation.
• “The interview process may compromise the dignity of the advocate and convert the designation process into a selection process,” the bench said.

8. Prohibition on Secret Ballot Voting:

• The Court questioned the ban on secret ballot voting for selecting Senior Advocates, raising concerns about the transparency of the process.
• “Should the judges openly discuss the merits and demerits of applicants?” the Court asked, challenging the current guidelines.

9. Disadvantage to Advocates in Trial Courts:

• The Court raised the issue that advocates practicing in trial courts, who may not have reported judgments, are at a disadvantage, despite having significant standing and competence in their legal work.

Emphasis on Dignity of Judiciary

The Court reiterated the importance of ensuring that only deserving advocates receive the Senior Advocatedesignation, warning that conferring it on undeserving candidates would diminish the prestige and dignity of the judiciary.

Directions for Further Action

Following these concerns, the bench directed the Registrar General to present a copy of the judgment to the Chief Justice of India to decide whether a larger bench should consider these issues.

Additional Issues: Advocates-on-Record (AoR) Code of Conduct

The Court also addressed the conduct of Advocates-on-Record (AoRs), particularly in light of a case involving misrepresentation and suppression of facts in remission pleas. The Court outlined the responsibilities of AoRs, emphasizing their role in ensuring accurate representation in petitions and counter-affidavits.

• AoRs must thoroughly verify the facts and documents before filing any petitions.
• If an AoR fails to do so, they will be held accountable for incorrect statements made in the filings.

The Court made it clear that misconduct by AoRs could result in disciplinary action as per Rule 10 of Order IV SC Rules.

Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra’s Case

• The Court also addressed the Senior Advocate designation of Rishi Malhotra, who was found to have made false statements in several remission pleas. While the Court did not decide on his designation withdrawal, it left the matter to the Chief Justice of India for further action.

Background of the Case

This case arose from misrepresentation in a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by Rishi Malhotra. The Court had previously taken note of the false statements made in the petition, where key facts were suppressed. The case raised concerns about the growing trend of misrepresentation in remission pleas and highlighted the need for stricter adherence to ethical conduct by advocates.

The Court also sought suggestions from the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) and appointed Senior Advocate Dr. S. Muralidhar as Amicus Curiae to assist in formulating better guidelines for the Senior Advocate designation process and the conduct of AoRs.

Further Steps Suggested

• Amicus Curiae Dr. Muralidhar suggested the introduction of a secret ballot system for selecting Senior Advocates, where all judges of the Constitutional Court would vote on the matter.
• Suggestions were made to amend the Supreme Court Rules to define the responsibilities of different categories of lawyers and ensure better accuracy in pleadings.

Case Title – Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt.) of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Attachment: