SC Issues New Guidelines For Senior Advocate Designations

In a major overhaul and major revisit of the senior designation process of advocates, we see that the Supreme Court has once again stepped forward in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Jitender @ Kalla vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Anr. in Criminal Appeal No. 865 of 2025 etc and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2025 INSC 667 that was pronounced as recently as on May 13, 2025 has most significantly issued new guidelines for conferring senior advocate designations upon lawyers. It has most explicitly directed that the point-based assessment by the Permanent Committee that was evolved in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India, (2017) 9 SCC 766 and Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India, (2023) 8 SCC 1 be departed with and discontinued. In a notable clarification, we see it was also clarified clearly by the top court that while processes already underway under the previous Indira Jaising framework will continue, no new applications should be accepted until new rules are framed.

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by Hon'ble Mr Justice Abhay S Oka for a Bench of the Apex Court comprising of himself, Hon'ble Mr Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and so also Hon'ble Mr Justice SVN Bhatti sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth the factual background laying bare in para 1 that, "By the judgment of this Court in the case of Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Ors 2025 INSC 249 [for short, "Jitender @ Kalla"], a Bench of two judges of this Court expressed certain concerns regarding the process of designation of Senior Advocates laid down in the decision of this Court in the case of Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (2017) 9 SCC 766 [for short, "Indira Jaising-1"]. The Bench directed that the concerns expressed by it be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India for considering whether the issues arising out of the said concerns need to be placed before a larger Bench of appropriate strength. As per the administrative order passed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India, the issues arising out of the process of designating Advocates as Senior Advocates raised in the judgment dated 20th February 2025 in Jitender @ Kalla have been placed for consideration before this Bench. Before we delve into the concerns and issues raised by the Bench of two judges, it is important to consider the factual history that gave rise to the issues which require consideration."

While referring to the case of Indira Jaising - 1, the Bench points out in para 2 that, "Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (for short, "the Advocates Act") creates two classes of Advocates, namely, senior Advocates and other Advocates. Under Sub-Section (2) of Section 16 of the Advocates Act, the Supreme Court and High Courts have the power to designate an Advocate as a Senior Advocate with his consent. Earlier, the Supreme Court and High Courts, in exercise of powers under Section 16, followed distinct systems of designating Senior Advocates. A Writ Petition was filed by Ms. Indira Jaising, Senior Advocate, before this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking reforms in the system of designation of senior Advocates by the Supreme Court of India. There were several other petitions challenging the processes of designation followed by various High Courts. The Gujarat High Court Advocates' Association had filed an Intervention Application challenging the validity of Section 16 of the Advocates Act and Order IV Rule 2 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 on the ground that the classification of Advocates into two distinct classes was not based on any reasonable and acceptable basis and was violative of Articles 14 and 18 of the Constitution of India. The issues were clubbed together and heard by a bench of three judges of this Court."

Above all and most significantly, we must now focus on what the top court laid down in para 87 in its conclusion which forms the cornerstone and backbone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that, "We, therefore, pass following orders:

(i) We direct that the directions contained in paragraph 73.7 of Indira Jaising-1 as amended by Indira Jaising-2 shall not be implemented;

(ii) It will be appropriate if all the High Courts frame Rules in terms of what is held in this decision within a period of 4 months from today by amending or substituting the existing Rules. The Rules shall be made keeping in view the following guidelines:

a. The decision to confer designation shall be of the Full Court of the High Courts or this Court;

b. The applications of all candidates found to be eligible by the Permanent Secretariat along with relevant documents submitted by the applicants shall be placed before the Full House. An endeavour can always be made to arrive at consensus. However, if a consensus on designation of Advocates is not arrived at, the decision-making must be by a democratic method of voting. Whether in a given case there should be a secret ballot, is a decision which can be best left to the High Courts to take a call considering facts and circumstances of the given case;

c. Minimum qualification of 10 years of practice fixed by Indira Jaising-1 needs no reconsideration;

d. The practice of Advocates making applications for grant of designation can continue as the act of making application can be treated as consent of the Advocates concerned for designation. Additionally, the Full Court may consider and confer designation dehors an application in a deserving case;

e. In the scheme of Section 16(2), there is no scope for individual Judges of this Court or High Courts to recommend candidate for designation; and

f. At least one exercise of designation should be undertaken every calendar year.

(iii) The processes already initiated on the basis of decisions of this Court in the case of Indira Jaising-1 and Indira Jaising-2 shall continue to be governed by the said decisions. However, new process shall not be initiated and new applications shall not be considered unless there is a proper regime of Rules framed by the High Courts;

(iv) It is obvious that even this Court will have to undertake the exercise of amending the Rules/Guidelines in the light of this decision; and

(v) Every endeavour shall be made to improve the regime/system of designation by periodically reviewing the same by this Court and the respective High Courts."

Frankly speaking and most forthrightly, the Bench then underscores in para 86 propounding that, "The view which we have taken will be again subject to what is observed in paragraph 74 of the decision in the case of Indira Jaising-1 and paragraph 51 of the decision in the case of Indira Jaising-2. Looking to the very nature of the process of designation, it is very difficult to arrive at a perfect system. We learn from our experience and the mistakes committed in the past. Therefore, the endeavour of all stakeholders should be to keep on improving the system, so that we may ensure that not a single deserving Advocate is left out of the process of designation and not a single undeserving person is designated."

Most remarkably and most pleasingly, one feels elated to read that the top court is gracious enough to most frankly acknowledge in para 88 observing clearly, cogently and convincingly that, "Before we part with the judgment, we must compliment each and every member of the Bar who has assisted us. We must acknowledge the huge contribution of Ms. Indira Jaising, Senior Advocate in the entire process. She must be given full credit for starting a constructive debate on the issue. We hope and trust that her endeavour of bringing about objectivity and transparency in the process of designation succeeds."

Most rationally, the Apex Court expounds in para 79 holding that, "When we talk of diversity, we must ensure that the High Courts evolve a mechanism by which the members of the Bar practicing in our Trial and District Judiciary and before specialised Tribunals are considered for designation as their role is no inferior to the role played by Advocates practicing before this Court and High Courts. This is also an essential part of diversity. The High Courts can always call for the views of the Principal District Judges or the Heads of the Tribunals on such applicants. Moreover, when the cases of the Advocates practicing in District Courts are considered, the views of the Guardian/Administrative Judges of the concerned District are always available."

It is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 84 that, "The grassroots level situation in each High Court differs. High Courts have their own traditions. Therefore, it should be best left to the High Courts to frame rules in the light of the principles laid down in this decision. While framing rules, this Court and the High Courts must undertake a detailed process of consultation with the Advocate General, senior members of the Bar, office bearers of the Bar Associations and the members of the State Bar Council. Even the members of the Bar owe a duty to ensure that only deserving Advocates get designation, and therefore, their suggestions must be given importance in the process of framing rules. The Rules must take into consideration several contingencies. There are cases where after the request for designation is rejected by one High Court, the candidate approaches this Court or another High Court. The Rules can provide for prohibition on applying for a certain period after rejection of earlier application. The Rules can provide for the form of application, required documents etc."

While opening its cards on income and minimum practice for being eligible to be considered as a senior lawyer, the Bench is most emphatic in holding in para 80 that, "Another question is whether a number of years of practice or minimum income should be a criterion. It all depends on the situation in every State. If a condition of minimum income is introduced, the process will cease to be inclusive. Income is one of the several factors to be considered. The requirement of a minimum practice of 10 years should be retained as the standing at the Bar can be assessed only if the Advocate has practiced for a reasonably long time."

In addition, the Bench then further states in para 89 holding that, "The issues referred are answered accordingly."

Finally, we see that the Bench then draws the curtains of this robust judgment holding and directing in para 90 stating that, "IA No. 45959 of 2022 in IA Dy Nos. 145730-31 of 2021 in MA No. 1502 of 2020 in WP (C) No. 454 of 2015 is allowed. IA Dy Nos. 145730-31 of 2021, IA No. 55879 of 2023 in MA No.1502 of 2020 and IA No. 36111 of 2023 in MA No. 262 of 2023 are allowed and disposed of in terms of the above judgment."