2025 INSC 667 Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 1 of 89

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 865 OF 2025

Jitender @ Kalla … Appellant

versus

State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Anr. … Respondents

with

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 454 of 2015

and

Interlocutory Application No. 36111 of 2023

in

MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 262 OF 2023

in

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 454 OF 2015

and

Interlocutory Application No. 45959 of 2022

(in IA Diary No. 145730-31/2021 in MA No. 1502 of 2020 in WP(C) No. 454

of 2015)

J U D G M E N T

ABHAY S. OKA, J

INDEX

FACTUAL BACKGROUND _______________________________ 3

A. Indira Jaising – 1 ___________________________________ 4

B. Indira Jaising – 2 ___________________________________ 9

C. Order expressing doubts with Indira Jaising -1 and

Indira Jaising-2 and inviting attention of the Hon’ble

Chief Justice ______________________________________ 12

D. Constitution of this Bench _________________________ 21

E. Interlocutory Applications __________________________ 23

Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 2 of 89

SUBMISSIONS _______________________________________ 25

CONSIDERATION ____________________________________ 49

A. Scheme of Section 16 of the Advocates Act __________ 49

(i) Ability ________________________________________ 52

(ii) Standing at the Bar ___________________________ 53

(iii) Special Knowledge of Law ____________________ 54

B. The reasons recorded for exercise of Jurisdiction under

Article 142 of the Constitution in Indira Jaising-1 ___ 56

C. 100 Point based Overall Assessment – The basis of

Decision Making ___________________________________ 66

(i) Participation of the Members of the Bar in the

process of 100 Points based Overall Assessment ____ 68

(ii) Duration of Practice ___________________________ 70

(iii) Interview or Interaction ______________________ 72

(iv) Reported and Unreported Judgments, Pro Bono

Work and Domain Expertise/Experience ____________ 74

(v) Publications __________________________________ 76

D. Reconsideration in terms of Paragraph 74 of Indira

Jaising-1 and paragraph 51 of Indira Jaising-2______ 77

E. Judges Recommending Candidates _________________ 78

F. Whether Applications for Designations are warranted 79

G. Diversity and Inclusivity in the Process _____________ 80

H. Income and Minimum Practice _____________________ 81

I. Secret Ballot_______________________________________ 82

J. Practice of Senior Advocates using a Special Gown __ 83

K. Need to frame proper Rules ________________________ 83

L. Permanent Secretariat _____________________________ 85

M. Need to Periodically Review the Procedure ___________ 85

CONCLUSIONS _______________________________________ 86

Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 3 of 89

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

1. By the judgment of this Court in the case of Jitender

@ Kalla v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Ors

1 [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

2 [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

20

th 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

1

2025 INSC 249

2

(2017) 9 SCC 766

Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 4 of 89

issues which require consideration.

A. Indira Jaising – 1

2. 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

Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 5 of 89

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.

3. Vide an elaborate judgement in the said case of Indira

Jaising-1, a coordinate Bench upheld the validity of Section

16 of the Advocates Act and Order IV Rule 2 of the Supreme

Court Rules. This Court also exercised powers under Article

142 of the Constitution of India with a view to bringing about

uniformity in approach in the process of designation. The

guidelines laid down by this Court are as follows:

“73. It is in the above backdrop that we

proceed to venture into the exercise and

lay down the following norms/guidelines

which henceforth would govern the

exercise of designation of Senior

Advocates by the Supreme Court and all

High Courts in the country. The

norms/guidelines, in existence, shall be

suitably modified so as to be in accord

with the present.

73.1. All matters relating to designation of

Senior Advocates in the Supreme Court of

India and in all the High Courts of the

Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 6 of 89

country shall be dealt with by a Permanent

Committee to be known as “Committee for

Designation of Senior Advocates”;

73.2. The Permanent Committee will be

headed by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of

India and consist of two seniormost Judges of

the Supreme Court of India [or High Court(s),

as may be]; the learned Attorney General for

India (Advocate General of the State in case

of a High Court) will be a Member of the

Permanent Committee. The above four

Members of the Permanent Committee will

nominate another Member of the Bar to be

the fifth Member of the Permanent

Committee;

73.3. The said Committee shall have a

permanent Secretariat, the composition of

which will be decided by the Chief Justice of

India or the Chief Justices of the High Courts,

as may be, in consultation with the other

Members of the Permanent Committee;

73.4. All applications including written

proposals by the Hon'ble Judges will be

submitted to the Secretariat. On receipt of

such applications or proposals from Hon'ble

Judges, the Secretariat will compile the

relevant data and information with regard to

the reputation, conduct, integrity of the

advocate(s) concerned including his/her

participation in pro bono work; reported

judgments in which the advocate(s)

concerned had appeared; the number of such

judgments for the last five years. The

source(s) from which information/data will be

sought and collected by the Secretariat will be

as decided by the Permanent Committee;

Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 7 of 89

73.5. The Secretariat will publish the

proposal of designation of a particular

advocate in the official website of the Court

concerned inviting the suggestions/views of

other stakeholders in the proposed

designation;

73.6. After the database in terms of the

above is compiled and all such information

as may be specifically directed by the

Permanent Committee to be obtained in

respect of any particular candidate is

collected, the Secretariat shall put up the

case before the Permanent Committee for

scrutiny;

73.7. The Permanent Committee will

examine each case in the light of the data

provided by the Secretariat of the

Permanent Committee; interview the

advocate concerned; and make its overall

assessment on the basis of a point-based

format indicated below:

Sl.

No.

Matter Points

1. Number of years of practise

of the applicant advocate

from the date of

enrolment. [10 points for

10-20 years of practise; 20

points for practise beyond

20 years]

20

points

2 Judgments (reported and

unreported) which indicate

the legal formulations

advanced by the advocate

concerned in the course of

the proceedings of the

40

points

Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 8 of 89

case; pro bono work done

by the advocate concerned;

domain expertise of the

applicant advocate in

various branches of law,

such as Constitutional law,

InterState Water Disputes,

Criminal law, Arbitration

law, Corporate law, Family

law, Human Rights, Public

Interest Litigation,

International law, law

relating to women, etc.

3. Publications by the

applicant advocate

15

points

4. Test of personality and

suitability on the basis of

interview/interaction

25

points

73.8. All the names that are listed before

the Permanent Committee/cleared by the

Permanent Committee will go to the Full

Court.

73.9. Voting by secret ballot will not

normally be resorted to by the Full Court

except when unavoidable. In the event of

resort to secret ballot, decisions will be

carried by a majority of the Judges who

have chosen to exercise their

preference/choice.

73.10. All cases that have not been

favourably considered by the Full Court may

be reviewed/reconsidered after expiry of a

period of two years following the manner

indicated above as if the proposal is being

considered afresh;

Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 9 of 89

73.11. In the event a Senior Advocate is

guilty of conduct which according to the Full

Court disentitles the Senior Advocate

concerned to continue to be worthy of the

designation, the Full Court may review its

decision to designate the person concerned

and recall the same.”

(emphasis added)

4. Recognising that the guidelines may require

reconsideration in the future through suitable

deletions/additions, in paragraph 74 of Indira Jaising-1, it

was held that: -

“74. We are not oblivious of the fact that the

guidelines enumerated above may not be

exhaustive of the matter and may require

reconsideration by suitable additions/

deletions in the light of the experience to be

gained over a period of time. This is a course

of action that we leave open for consideration

by this Court at such point of time that the

same becomes necessary.”

B. Indira Jaising – 2

5. In view of the aforesaid paragraph 74, several

applications seeking modification of the guidelines conceived

in Indira Jaising-1 were filed. Another coordinate Bench of

this Court in the case of Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court

Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 10 of 89

of India

3 [for short, “Indira Jaising-2”], reconsidered the

guidelines and made the following modifications:

a. The norms enumerated in Indira Jaising-1 required

10 points to be given for all Advocates practicing

between 10-20 years and 20 points for all Advocates

who had practiced beyond 20 years. It was argued that,

as a result, an applicant with 11 years of practice shall

obtain the same number of points as an applicant with

19 years of practice. In order to iron out this crease,

this Court observed that under this category, one mark

shall be allocated for every year of practice between 10-

20 years.

b. The procedure established in Indira Jaising-I laid

down that after evaluation of the permanent

committee, voting by secret ballot shall be resorted to

only in unavoidable circumstances. However, with

time, it was noted that secret ballot voting had become

a frequent practice. Even when the permanent

3

(2023) 8 SCC 1

Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 11 of 89

committee had conducted a proper assessment, the

final decision often depended on the vote of the Full

Court. Recognizing the validity of several concerns

raised regarding the use of secret ballot, this Court

reaffirmed that such a method must remain an

exception, and if it is employed, the reasons for doing

so must be clearly recorded by the Full Court.

c. The criterion listed at Serial No. 2 in the table under

Paragraph 73.7 of Indira Jaising-I was considered the

most significant, as it encompassed reported and

unreported judgments, pro bono work, and an

applicant’s expertise in various branches of law.

Consequently, the marks allocated to this criterion

were increased by 10 points, while the marks assigned

for an Advocate’s publications under Serial No. 3 of the

said table were reduced by 10 points.

6. While disposing of the applications for modifications,

the coordinate Bench reiterated that the process of

improvement is a continuous one and noted:

Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 12 of 89

“51. We only hope that our endeavour to

simplify some aspects of the process results

in the designation of more meritorious

candidates. The process of improvement is

a continuous one and we learn from every

experience. This is one more step in the fine-

tuning of this exercise and we hope it

achieves the purpose. The ultimate objective

is to provide better assistance to litigants and

the courts.”

(emphasis added)

C. Order expressing doubts with Indira Jaising-1 and

Indira Jaising-2 and inviting attention of the Hon’ble

Chief Justice

7. In Jitender @ Kalla, the Appellant had filed a Special

Leave Petition (for short, ‘SLP’) against an order of the High

Court wherein the High Court directed reconsideration of an

application for premature release of another convict. Though

the Appellant was not a party to the petition in which the

impugned order was passed, strangely, he challenged the

said order. Further, while filing the SLP, the Appellant did

not disclose that he was directed to undergo imprisonment

for thirty years without remission. Therefore, this Court

proceeded on the footing that it was a case of a simple life

sentence. This Court passed an order dated 19

th March

Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 13 of 89

2024, issuing notice and exempting the Appellant from

surrendering. Thereafter, on an application being filed by the

1

st informant, this Court in its order dated 2

nd September

2024 noted that material misrepresentations were made by

suppressing the fact that the Appellant was not a party to

the proceedings before the High Court and had been

sentenced to a fixed term of 30 years. Accordingly, this Court

issued notice to the Advocate-on-Record to explain his

conduct.

8. Pursuant to the order, the concerned Advocate -on-

Record filed an affidavit dated 9

th September 2024. In view

of the contents of the said affidavit, this Court on 30

th

September 2024 issued notice to the Senior Advocate (who

earlier also appeared as an Advocate for the petitioner in

Jitender @ Kalla before his designation on 14

th August,

2024) appearing in the matter to explain what was stated in

the affidavit of the Advocate-on-Record. This Court also

recorded that in at least half a dozen cases, blatant false

statements were made in the writ petitions and Special Leave

Petitions that were filed seeking relief of premature release.

Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 14 of 89

The concerned Senior Advocate filed his affidavit.

Subsequently, in its order dated 21

st October, 2024, this

Court permitted the concerned Senior Advocate to withdraw

and file a better affidavit explaining his conduct. This Court

also recorded that the case raises issues of great concern,

insofar as the responsibility of Advocates-on-Record of this

Court is concerned.

9. Thereafter, on 30.11.2024, the concerned Senior

Advocate filed an affidavit tendering an unconditional

apology. As recorded by this Court in its judgment in

Jitender @ Kalla, the concerned Senior Advocate had

previously made misrepresentations before this Court as

recorded in the common order dated 1

st October 2024 passed

in Writ Petition (Crl.) No.631 of 2023, SLP (Crl.) @ D.No.4464

of 2024, SLP (Crl.) No.1775 of 2024, and Writ Petition (Crl.)

No.195 of 2024. Further, misrepresentations made by the

concerned Senior Advocate were also recorded by this Court

in order dated 29th November 2024 passed in Writ Petition

(Crl.) No.418 of 2024, and orders dated 18

th November 2024

Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 15 of 89

and 3

rd January, 2025 passed in SLP (Crl.) Nos.1484-1496

of 2024.

10. Considering the conduct of the concerned Senior

Advocate, a contention was raised by Shri Tushar Mehta,

learned Solicitor General of India for reconsideration of

earlier decisions of this Court in Indira Jaising – I and

Indira Jaising – II, and another decision in the case of

Amar Vivek Aggarwal v. High Court of Punjab &

Haryana and Ors

4.

11. This Court in its judgment dated 20

th February 2025 in

Jitender @ Kalla was of the view that the conduct of the

Senior Advocate reflected from the orders of this Court raised

an important question of whether the decisions of this Court

in the case of Indira Jaising – I and Indira Jaising – II,

which lay down the guidelines for designation of Senior

Advocates by this Court and High Courts across the country

under the 1961 Act, need reconsideration. A question also

arose about whether the regime set up under the said

4

(2022) 7 SCC 439

Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 16 of 89

decisions has worked effectively. This Court was of the view

that a serious introspection was required to answer the

question of whether the Rules framed in terms of the said

decisions have ensured that only deserving Advocates are

being designated.

12. This Court, accordingly, in paragraph 43 recorded its

doubts and concerns with the judgments of this Court in

Indira Jaising – I and Indira Jaising – II, and observed

thus:

“43. We are recording our concerns based on

submissions made across the Bar. We again

reiterate that we mean no disrespect to the

two binding decisions, and we are recording

our concerns only to enable the Hon’ble Chief

Justice of India, to decide whether the doubts

expressed by us need consideration by an

appropriate larger Bench. We flag our

concerns as follows:

a) As can be seen from sub-section (2) of

Section 16, prima facie, the scheme of the

provision is that no advocate can seek

designation, but the privilege of designation

has to be conferred by this Court or High

Courts with his consent. In paragraph 2 of

Indira Jaising-II, this Court held that

designation as a senior advocate in India is a

privilege awarded as a mark of excellence to

Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 17 of 89

advocates who have distinguished

themselves and have made a significant

contribution to the development of the legal

profession. Therefore, the question that

needs serious consideration is whether the

Court should permit applications to be made

for grant of designation, though the statute

does not contemplate that. If the legislature

intended to allow advocates to make

applications for designation, sub-section (2)

of Section 16 would not have provided for this

Court or High Courts to take the consent of

advocates before designation.

b) Paragraph 73.7 provides for an advocate

who has applied for designation to appear

before the Permanent Committee for an

interview/interaction to test his personality

and suitability. If an advocate, by virtue of his

standing at the Bar, his ability or special

knowledge, deserves designation as a senior

advocate, the question which arises is, by

making such an advocate appear for an

interview, are we not compromising on the

dignity of the advocate? Are we not converting

the process of designation into a selection

process?

c) It is doubtful whether by interviewing a

candidate for a few minutes, his personality

or suitability can be really tested. 25 points

out of 100 are assigned for

interview/interaction, constituting 1/4th of

the total points.

Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 18 of 89

d) As recorded in paragraph 73.7, the duty of

the Permanent Committee is to make its

overall assessment of the advocate concerned

based on a points-based formula. No other

method of making an overall assessment has

been provided. No one can dispute that an

advocate who lacks integrity or does not

possess a quality of fairness is disentitled to

designation. The reason is simple as such an

advocate cannot be held to have any standing

at the Bar. Moreover, there may be

complaints pending against an advocate with

the disciplinary committee of the Bar

Councils. The question is how the cases of

such advocates can be considered by the

Permanent Committee. Even if members of

the Permanent Committee know that the

applicant advocate lacks integrity, is not fair,

does not act as an officer of the Court, or

against whom complaints are pending for

professional misconduct, there is no scope to

reduce the points on that count. If such an

advocate excels at the time of the interview or

otherwise renders excellent performance, he

cannot be given lesser marks because the

candidate lacks integrity, character or

fairness. The reason is that 25 marks are to

be assigned not based on his performance

before the Court or his general reputation but

on his performance during the

interview/interaction.

e) As noted earlier, prior to 31st January

1974, the criteria in sub-section (2) of Section

16 was based on ability, experience and

Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 19 of 89

standing at the Bar. That was substituted

with effect from 31st January 1974. After the

amendment, mere experience in terms of the

number of years of practice cannot be

relevant. However, “experience in law” needs

consideration. Thus, mere experience in

terms of number of years of practice is not

sufficient. Our concern is whether 10 or 20

points should be mechanically assigned only

based on experience or the number of years

of practice. It is worth considering whether

only the number of years put in practice has

any nexus with ‘standing’ within the meaning

of Section 16(2). Further, it is pertinent to

note that Sr. No.1 in paragraph 73.7 merely

discusses the number of years of practice.

The criteria adopted is not of actual years of

active practice. Therefore, an advocate who

has not been in active practice for 20 years or

more will still get 20 marks because his

registration as an advocate has been for more

than 20 years.

f) It is a usual experience that applicants

submit many judgments in which they have

appeared and submit copies of books and

many articles written by them. The five

members of the Permanent Committee are

expected to go through every judgment

submitted by the candidate to assign 50

marks. To assign marks for publications, they

are expected to go through many articles and

books. Whether three senior judges,

including the Chief Justice and two senior

advocates, should spend hours together for

Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 20 of 89

one candidate is a question that needs

serious consideration.

g) It is true that the overall assessment made

by the Permanent Committee in terms of

points is placed before the Full Court. The

decision of the Full Court may not necessarily

be based on the points assigned by the

Permanent Committee. Still, the Full Court

cannot altogether ignore the assessment

made by the Permanent Committee. When

the points-based assessment is not free from

defects, the question is whether it can form

the basis of assessment of an advocate.

h) Another issue is about the prohibition of

secret ballot. The Judges consider the

applications in Full Court. The question

arises as to whether the Judges should

openly discuss the merits and demerits of

those who appear before them on the judicial

side. Therefore, the issue of permitting voting

by secret ballot needs serious

reconsideration.

i) There is one more serious area of concern.

Whether the guidelines give sufficient

opportunity to the advocates practising in our

Trial Courts to get designated. There cannot

be any dispute that we have very eminent

lawyers practising exclusively before our Trial

Courts who have the ability, standing and

experience in law. They are outstanding

public prosecutors and defence lawyers. In

most cases, their arguments may not always

have legal formulations, as reflected in the

Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 21 of 89

judgments in cases wherein they appear. The

submissions will necessarily be based on

facts. They will not have reported judgments

to their credit. Such advocates do not stand

to gain sufficient points against Sr. No. 2 in

paragraph 73.7. We are of the view that

designation under sub-section (2) of Section

16 cannot be the monopoly of the advocates

practising in higher Constitutional Courts

like this Court and the High Courts. Chapter

6, in part VI of the Constitution of India, in a

sense, gives the status of Constitutional

Courts to our trial and district courts.”

13. Based on the doubts and concerns expressed in

paragraph 43 of the judgment dated 20

th February 2025, this

Court, in paragraph 45, observed thus:

“45. Considering what we have observed in

paragraph no. 43 above, we direct the

Registrar (Judicial) to place a copy of this

judgment before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of

India. It is for the Hon’ble Chief Justice of

India, to consider whether the issues

flagged by us deserve to be considered by

a Bench of appropriate strength.”

D. Constitution of this Bench

14. The judgment of this Court in Jitender @ Kalla dated

20

th February 2025 was placed before the Hon’ble Chief

Justice of India. Accordingly, pursuant to the directions of

Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 22 of 89

the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, the issues flagged in

paragraph 43 of Jitender @ Kalla have been listed before

this Bench. This Bench, in its order dated 25th February

2025, issued notice to various parties. The relevant part of

the said order is as follows:

“2. Considering paragraphs 43 and 45 of the

judgment dated 20th February, 2025 passed

in Criminal Appeal No.865/20252, issue

notice to the respondents in Writ Petition (C)

No.454/2015. As far as the Supreme Court

Advocates-on-Record Association is

concerned, it is represented today. Therefore,

notice to the Supreme Court Advocates-on-

Record Association is not required to be

issued. Shri Tushar Mehta, the learned

Solicitor General states that he will intimate

to the learned Attorney General for India as

well as the Union of India so that they will be

represented on the next date. Therefore,

notice is not required to be issued to the

learned Attorney General and the Union of

India as well. As far as the rest of the

respondents (except the High Courts) in Writ

Petition (C) No.454/2015 are concerned,

notice be issued to them through email

informing them that the hearing will be on

19th March, 2025. A copy of the judgment

dated 20th February, 2025 in Criminal

Appeal No.865/20252 as well as this order

shall be forwarded along with the notice

through e-email.”

Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 23 of 89

E. Interlocutory Applications

15. With further experience being gained on the process for

designating Senior Advocates, several interlocutory

applications were filed seeking modification of the guidelines

laid down by this Court and challenging the designation

process conducted by various High Courts. In this judgment,

we are focusing on the system of designation of Senior

Advocates and the concerns expressed about the guidelines

laid down by this Court. In addition to the issues flagged in

paragraph 43 of Jitender @ Kalla, we will be addressing the

issues raised in the following applications:

a) IA 45959/2022 in IA No.145730 -31/2021 in MA

No.1502/2020 in WP (C) 454/2015

IA 145730-31 in MA 1502/2020 arises out of the

designation process conducted at the High Court of

Patna, seeking modification of the guidelines laid down

in the cases of Indira Jaising I and II to bring

objectivity, transparency and fairness . These

applications were dismissed by the Order of the

Registrar dated 23

rd December 2021 in terms of Order

XV Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, observing

Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 24 of 89

that the sum and substance of these IAs was in the

nature of seeking review of the judgment in Indira

Jaising II. IA 45959/2022 is an appeal against the

Registrar’s order dated 23

rd December 2021.

b) IA No. 55879/2023 in MA No.1502/2020 in WP (C)

454/2015

These applications pray for the reconsideration and

modification of guidelines laid down by the Supreme

Court in light of the observations made in Paragraph

74 of Indira Jaising I. The applicant has made several

suggestions, including giving special privilege to

Advocates with 30 years’ experience, deleting the

criteria for publications, deleting the marking on the

basis of an interview, conducting voting by secret

ballot, designating Advocates without requiring

submission of applications and designating mofussil

Advocates as well.

Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 25 of 89

c) IA No. 36111/2023 in MA No. 262/2023 in WP (C)

454/2015

These applications are filed by the Union of India

seeking modification of the judgment of this Court in

the case of Indira Jaising I, contending that

allotment of 40% of weightage to publications and

interview is highly subjective and need not be an

effective parameter to judge the suitability of a

candidate. Directions are sought to the effect that the

applicant's performance shall be evaluated in a Full

Court meeting by secret ballot method.

SUBMISSIONS

A. Submissions by the Learned Attorney General for

India

16. We have heard the learned Attorney General for India.

He submitted that the convention before Indira Jaising – I

was to ask an Advocate for his consent before designating

him as a Senior Advocate. However, due to the large number

of Advocates joining the Bar, he submitted that the earlier

convention of approaching Advocates instead of inviting

Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 26 of 89

applications would not be feasible. He further submitted that

designation as a Senior Advocate is a milestone in the career

of an Advocate, and asking an Advocate for consent should

not be the only way of conferring designation. He

acknowledged that the existing system has flaws but

submitted that by inviting applications, the system has

opened the doors for an aspirational class of lawyers that he

terms as the ‘middle class’ to apply for designation. He

submitted that there are expanding disciplines within the

legal profession, and the number of talented Advocates

continues to grow. He submitted that the system of inviting

applications holds relevance for such aspiring Advocates,

and it is necessary to promote them to grow in the

profession. He submitted that this Court has opened the

system to such Advocates by permitting the invitation of

applications.

17. Regarding the current system of designation, the

learned Attorney General submitted that he is personally

uncomfortable with the idea of an interview/interaction and

finds it embarrassing, as all applicants are his peers, whom

Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 27 of 89

he knows personally. If the interview is to be retained, the

learned Attorney General would submit that personal

questions regarding how the applicant is as a person should

be asked instead of legal questions. He submitted that the

factors of the marking system can change over the years. He

submitted that Section 16 of the Advocates Act is merely a

signpost which gives a broad roadmap for designation and

that this Court would have to use its powers under Article

142 of the Constitution of India to fill gaps and improve the

system as and when needed. He submitted that the inclusion

of Advocates in the Permanent Committee is not restricted

by Section 16 of the Advocates Act and has been made by

this Court using powers under Article 142 of the

Constitution of India.

18. The learned Attorney General has also shared with this

Court his experiences while being part of the Permanent

Committee for the designation of Senior Advocates by the

Supreme Court. The learned Attorney General frankly stated

that it was not possible for him to peruse the entire material

submitted by applicants, such as books, articles, reported

Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 28 of 89

judgments, etc., as it was very voluminous. He admitted that

it is not possible for the Permanent Committee to peruse all

the material. He submitted that the assignment of marks by

the Permanent Committee of the Supreme Court was in the

nature of recommendations, after which there was nothing

else for the Full Court to add, except to confirm these

recommendations. The learned Attorney General was of the

view that if the Permanent Committee does its assessment

properly, voting by secret ballot would become unnecessary.

He submitted that the only scope of evaluation left for the

Full Court can be regarding issues of ethics and integrity.

B. Submissions by the Learned Solicitor General of India

19. The learned Solicitor General appeared on behalf of the

Secretary General of the Supreme Court of India, as also in

his capacity as the Solicitor General of India. Appearing on

behalf of the Secretary General of the Supreme Court of

India, the learned counsel took us through Para 74 of the

judgement in Indira Jaising-1. He submitted that in the

light of the experience gained by the Supreme Court of India,

since the designation procedure prescribed in Indira

Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 29 of 89

Jaising-1 was conceived, several predicaments have arisen,

which show that the system has not yielded the results it

intended to achieve. He submitted that the assessment

conducted by a permanent committee, as proposed by

Indira Jaising-1, should be discontinued. In support of this

submission, he relied on Sub-Section (2) Section 16 of the

Advocates Act, 1961 which reads thus:

“Section 16. Senior and other advocates.

(1)….

(2) An advocate may, with his consent, be

designated as senior advocate if the

Supreme Court or a High Court is of

opinion that by virtue of his

ability, 1[standing at the Bar or special

knowledge or experience in law] he is

deserving of such distinction”

20. He submitted that Section 16 of the Advocates Act does

not envisage splitting the Full Court into smaller bodies.

Instead, it provides for conferment of distinction by a

collective body based on criteria laid down in the provision.

The procedure laid down under Indira Jaising-1, however,

deviates from the statute by allowing individual assessment

by a Permanent Committee comprising of the Chief Justice

and two senior-most judges of the respective court; the

Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 30 of 89

learned Attorney General for India (or Advocate General for

the State in case of a High Court); and a fifth member from

the bar appointed by the above four members. He further

argued that Section 16 vests the Supreme Court and High

Courts with discretionary power to designate Senior

Advocates, thereby excluding any external participation.

Consequently, the involvement of members of the bar,

including the Attorney General for India or the Advocate

General for the respective state, is not only unjustified but

also contrary to the intent of the provision, which entrusts

this responsibility solely to the Full Court. Additionally, he

submitted that the procedure prescribed by Indira Jaising-

1 restricts the use of voting by secret ballot only in

unavoidable circumstances. He argued that the stature of

individuals forming part of the Permanent Committee may

discourage or deter other judges from expressing their views

freely. To ensure that the collective view of the Full Court is

expressed without any undue influence, he urged that voting

by secret ballot be reinstated as a mandatory practice.

Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 31 of 89

21. The learned Solicitor General raised serious objections

to the marks system postulated by Indira Jaising-1. He

contended that Section 16 of the Advocates Act provides for

designation based on three predominant criteria: an

Advocate’s standing at the Bar, special knowledge, or

experience in law. However, he submitted that the marks

system, as presently structured, fails to account for an

Advocate’s standing at the Bar, which, in his view, can only

be assessed through their performance in court and

integrity.

22. He pointed out that the marks system provides for

awarding up to 25 marks based on the interview or

interaction, but does not include any provision to deduct

marks for professional misconduct. As a result, an Advocate

who performs well in the interview and scores well in other

categories may still be designated, even if he or she has a

reputation for misleading the court or has been held guilty

of contempt. He contended that this omission undermines

the integrity of the selection process and fails to ensure that

only deserving candidates are designated. The learned

Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 32 of 89

counsel further submitted that the interview process

prescribed under the current framework is an inadequate

measure for assessing the suitability and personality of a

candidate. He contended that a brief interaction of 15 or 30

minutes cannot be a definit ive test of an Advocate’s

competence, integrity, or standing at the Bar. An Advocate’s

capabilities, he argued, must be evaluated primarily on the

basis of their courtroom performance over time, rather than

a short and subjective interview.

23. He further submitted that only the Court before which

an Advocate regularly practices should have the authority to

confer designation. He pointed out that the procedure

prescribed under Indira Jaising-1 provides for the award of

marks based on various criteria; however, it leaves the

determination of the minimum threshold for designation at

the discretion of the Full Court. As a result, the absence of a

uniform standard has led to inconsistencies in the

designation process across different High Courts. He

contended that this lack of uniformity allows lawyers to

submit applications before multiple High Courts in an

Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 33 of 89

attempt to secure designation, thereby undermining the

principle that an Advocate should be designated by the court

where he primarily practices.

24. Appearing in his capacity as the Solicitor General of

India, learned counsel contended that the objective behind

the system of designation, namely, the prevention of

canvassing/lobbying, has not been fulfilled. He submitted

that the inclusion of members of the Bar in the selection

process, coupled with the establishment of a Permanent

Committee responsible for evaluating applications and

assigning marks, has, in fact, facilitated

canvassing/lobbying rather than curbing it.

C. Submissions on behalf of the High Court of Delhi

25. The learned advocate appearing for the High Court of

Delhi largely supported the submissions made by the

learned Solicitor General. He submitted that designation

must be by conferment and not by application. He submitted

that there should be representations from the Bar and that

a proposal for designation can be initiated by the Chief

Justice, two sitting judges, or any two Senior Advocates who

Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 34 of 89

have been designated for more than 5 years. He submitted

that such proposals should be placed before the Full Court,

which would vote on them through the method of secret

ballots. He submitted that such proposals should be

considered twice a year, or at the very least once a year.

D. Submissions on behalf of the High Court of Karnataka

26. The learned advocate for the High Court of Karnataka

stated that a committee had been constituted to invite

suggestions. The learned advocate submitted that the

suggestions received were that interviews should be

discontinued. However, if the committee that is considering

proposals for designation is not acquainted with a particular

applicant for the reason that he has not practiced before that

court because he practices in a different region or only before

Trial Courts, there should be a provision for calling upon

such an applicant for an interaction. He submitted that the

criteria of integrity should be included by reducing marks for

other criteria. Further, he submitted that the number of

designations must be decided based on the number of

practicing Advocates to ensure that designation remains a

Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 35 of 89

distinction and does not become a title that is too widely

distributed. The learned advocate submitted that the object

of designation is to mentor junior members of the Bar, to

assist the Court in cases in an unbiased manner, and to

project to the Bar that honesty, integrity, erudition and

learning matters. He submitted that a designation is not an

honour to be conferred on an Advocate based on several

years of practice. Instead, he has to be a role model to the

younger members of the Bar. His honesty and integrity,

learning, erudition, skilful advocacy and oral arguments,

well-reasoned presentation in court, apart from standing at

the Bar, must be taken into account. He further submitted

that active practice should be an essential requirement for

designation. Mere theoretical knowledge is not sufficient.

Moreover, the designation is a process by which the courts

get the assistance of designated senior counsels, who will not

be a mere mouthpiece of the parties, but will assist the Court

in coming to a just conclusion irrespective of the fact that

they represent one party to the lis. Lastly, he submitted that

an active practitioner would not have time to publish articles

Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 36 of 89

and the present criteria of awarding marks for it should be

done away with.

E. Response on behalf of the High Court of Madhya

Pradesh

27. We have also received a representation from the High

Court of Madhya Pradesh. The representation calls for more

transparency in the selection process by publishing the

evaluation criteria, applications, and reasons for selection or

rejection in the public domain. The High Court of Madhya

Pradesh also suggests that regular and timely designation

must take place by conducting the process at fixed intervals.

There must also be involvement of the Bar Council and

independent legal experts in the Selection Committee, and

peer review from fellow Advocates and views from all judges

may be collected. Their submission is also to reduce

subjectivity and bias in evaluations by reducing reliance on

interviews and having a structured scoring system. They also

suggest promoting diversity and equal opportunities for

women, first-generation lawyers, lawyers from diverse

regions, including District Courts, and representation in

Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 37 of 89

different fields of law, not just traditional litigation. The High

Court has also represented that secret ballot must be

restricted. There must also be consideration of

specialization-based designations, recognizing pro bono

work and legal scholarship, introducing review mechanism

for rejected candidates, and standardized rules for all High

Courts.

F. Submissions on behalf of the High Court of Punjab and

Haryana

28. Shri P.S. Patwalia, learned Senior Advocate appearing

for the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, submitted that

his submissions are in tune with the submissions made by

the learned Solicitor General. He submitted that the

requirement of an interview for Adv ocates seeking

designation as Senior Advocates is unnecessary and reduces

the importance of courtroom performances. Accordingly, he

submitted that the evaluation should be based on courtroom

performance rather than an interview process. The learned

Senior Advocate submitted that in accordance with Section

16 of the Advocates Act, no rigid criteria for awarding marks

Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 38 of 89

should be prescribed for designation, and the matter should

be left to the discretion of the judges. He submitted that the

current evaluation process requires significant time and

effort, involving the review of numerous judgments, books,

and articles authored by applicants. An overemphasis on

such materials has detracted from the importance of

courtroom performance and is testing an applicant based on

his performance outside the courtroom in libraries. The

learned senior advocate submitted that judges, particularly

those who have been elevated from the Bar, possess fair

knowledge of their former colleagues' professional

capabilities and see their performance on a daily basis. He

submitted that no criteria where marks are awarded can

accurately capture the assessment of judges that takes place

on a regular basis based on courtroom performance. He

submitted that designation should be extended to those

members of the Bar who exclusively practice before the Trial

Courts as well and those judges from the Bar would know

the quality of their advocacy. Even judges appointed from the

Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 39 of 89

judicial services would be able to determine and know of the

advocacy of Advocates practicing before Trial Courts.

G. Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner-in-Person in

WP (C) 454/2015

29. We have heard Ms. Indira Jaising appearing as

Petitioner-in-Person. Ms. Jaising raised a preliminary

objection regarding the jurisdiction of this Court to hear the

reference. She submitted that this Court cannot review the

judgments in Indira Jaising – I and Indira Jaising – II

without an application being made for review. She submitted

that IA No. 45959 of 2022 in IA No. 145730-31 of 2021 in

MA 1502 of 2020 in WP (C) 454 of 2015 filed by advocates of

the Patna High Court for modification of the judgment was

not served upon her. When this Court called for records of

service on the second day of hearing, Ms. Jaising admitted

that she was incorrectly informed and that the application

was duly served on her advocate-on-record. She submitted

that the IA was in the nature of a modification, which is

different from a review of the judgment.

Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 40 of 89

30. Accordingly, she submitted that this Court could only

draw jurisdiction from paragraph 74 of Indira Jaising-I and

make suitable additions/deletions. She submitted that for

review of both the judgments, this Court would require a

review petition to be placed before it in accordance with

Article 137 of the Constitution of India read with Order XLVII

of the Supreme C ourt Rules, 2013. Further, any

reconsideration beyond the remit of paragraph 74 would

have to be referred to a larger bench.

31. On the merits of the case, Ms. Jaising opened her

submissions by supporting the system introduced by Indira

Jaising – I and Indira Jaising – II. Ms. Jaising contended

that the designation process must be objective, fair, and

transparent, and no power should remain unguided. Since

the exercise of designation is an administrative function of

the Supreme Court, it is subject to the scrutiny of Article 14

of the Constitution of India. Clear guidelines are required to

prevent arbitrary decision-making.

32. On the marking system, Ms. Jaising admitted that

there is no provision for awarding lower marks for lack of

Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 41 of 89

integrity. She argued that the existing marking system is not

exhaustive. She acknowledged that the merit of a candidate

should not be solely determined by academic qualifications

but should be assessed based on multiple factors such as

reputation, conduct, and integrity. She submitted that there

are two methods of ascertaining integrity – through official

records and by gathering information from stakeholders.

Regarding the first method of ascertaining integrity, she

emphasized that financial records, criminal records, or any

other records of disciplinary action can be checked. The

Court can also direct the applicant to file an affidavit calling

upon him to disclose certain details such as FIRs registered

against him, convictions/penalties imposed, arrests or

detentions made, etc. She submitted that this Court, as well

as some High Courts, already invite this information at the

time of making an application. In respect of the second form

of ascertaining integrity, she submitted that consultation

with relevant stakeholders is the only way to ascertain

integrity or reputation at the Bar.

Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 42 of 89

33. Ms. Jaising admitted that in the Writ Petition (C) No.

454 of 2015, she had not prayed for any interview system to

be included in the process of designation and that interviews

are susceptible to manipulation. However, she supported

retaining the interview system and submitted that the

weightage of marks given to an interview can be reduced and

marking on integrity be explicitly included. She suggested

renaming the process from ‘interview’ to ‘interaction’.

34. Ms. Jaising submitted that the marks given to each

criterion can be modified. For instance, she suggested that

contributions made to public life/service, whether the

candidate has an academic bent of mind, etc., should also

be considered. She proposed that examination of audited

bank accounts, pro bono work, library resources, the number

of juniors mentored, and the ability to critique judicial

decisions should be considered as criteria.

35. Ms. Jaising submitted that the originality of arguments

reflected in court judgments must be considered. However,

Ms. Jaising fairly admitted that the quality of submissions

and originality of arguments cannot be ascertained, as

Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 43 of 89

judgments do not fully reflect who made arguments, what

arguments were made, and judges may also sometimes add

on to the arguments made while finally adjudicating the

issue at hand. For this, Ms. Jaising submitted that supplying

written submissions and the practice of recording the name

of the Advocate making submissions in the judgment must

be made mandatory. She contended that the quality of

advocacy, rather than case outcomes, should be the decisive

factor in designation.

36. Ms. Jaising advocated for retaining publications as a

factor in assessment. She submitted that for evaluating the

judgment and academic work submitted by the candidates,

the Permanent Committee can take assistance from experts

from the field of academics in law or of the Centre for

Research and Planning functioning under the aegis of this

Court.

37. On the issue of how to determine experience at the Bar

as some Advocates may have enrolled decades back but not

be in active practice, Ms. Jaising submitted that it is not

practically possible to calculate years of active/actual

Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 44 of 89

practice. She submitted that any system may not be able to

take into account contingencies faced by Advocates, and the

date of enrolment should continue to be the criterion.

38. On the issue of domain expertise, she acknowledged

that specialization exists, with some Advocates practicing

exclusively in tax law or before specialized tribunals like the

National Green Tribunal. She submitted that such Advocates

should be assessed based on their judgments and

contributions within their specific domains.

39. Ms. Jaising also advocated for declaring cutoff marks

and declaring the same after results, or even before the

interview to determine where one stands. With such a

system, she submitted that any deduction in interview

marks on integrity would make such an applicant fall below

the cutoff.

40. On the issue of secret ballot, Ms. Jaising admitted that

whether secret ballot should be resorted to or not should be

left to the Full Court to decide. She submitted that there

Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 45 of 89

should not be any general rule governing the use of secret

ballots, and it can vary from designation to designation.

41. Ms. Jaising admitted that the current system is not

perfect and there is room for improvement, such as

prohibiting canvassing by Advocates, prohibiting written

recommendations being made by a judge or multiple judges

for a particular candidate, publishing the application made

and marks secured by an applicant, disclosure of probity

and information relating to criminal/disciplinary

proceedings through affidavits, deducting interview marks

for questionable integrity, and taking help of external parties

to evaluate judgments and academic work.

H. Submissions on behalf of the National Lawyers

Campaign

42. The learned counsel, Shri Mathew J. Nedumpara ,

appearing on behalf of the National Lawyers Campaign,

submitted that Section 16 of the Advocates Act vests

discretionary power in the High Courts and the Supreme

Court to confer designations. Consequently, he contended

that the practice of inviting applications from lawyers is

Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 46 of 89

unsustainable. The learned counsel emphasized that many

lawyers may consider it beneath their dignity to apply for

designation and undergo an interview process. Moreover, he

argued that since the Parliament has expressly provided for

discretionary designation, the Supreme Court lacks

jurisdiction to frame guidelines for the designation of Senior

Advocates on the basis of applications. He further submitted

that the creation of a Permanent Committee leads to

excessive canvassing and results in the designation of only

the kith and kin of its members.

I. Submissions of Applicants in IA 45959 of 2022 in

145730-31 of 2021 in MA 1502 Of 2020 in WP (C) 454

of 2015

43. Learned Senior Counsel for the intervenors supported

the submissions of the learned Solicitor General. He relied

on the judgement of this Court in the case of E.S. Reddy v.

Chief Secretary, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh (1987) 3 SCC

258, wherein this Court observed that designation under

Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act is an honour and privilege

conferred by the Full Court on Advocates of standing and

experience. He submitted that Section 16 mandates

Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 47 of 89

obtaining the Advocate’s consent for designation, reinforcing

that it is a recognition of merit. He further argued that the

procedure in Indira Jaising-1 improperly confers an

inherent right to be considered for designation without any

mechanism to address grievances, hence the entire system

of applications is contrary to the statutory scheme.

J. Submissions of Respondent no. 2 (complainant) in

Jitender @ Kalla v. State of NCT Delhi (Crl.) Appeal No.

865 of 2025

44. Learned counsel Shri Pranav Sachdeva, appearing for

Respondent No. 2, i.e., the complainant in Criminal Appeal

No. 865 of 2025, supported the application system

introduced in Indira Jaising-1. He refuted the contention

that the application procedure, including an interview,

demeans Advocates seeking a distinction. He noted that

several high-level appointments, such as the Central

Vigilance Commissioner, Lokpal, and Central Information

Commissioner, are made through a similar application

process. He submitted that the application system promotes

transparency, benefitting litigants and the public at large.

Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 48 of 89

K. Submission of Supreme Court Advocates -On-Record

Association

45. Learned counsel Mr. Vipin Nair, appearing for the

Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association, submitted

that the marks system, including the existing criteria

introduced in Indira Jaising-1 and 2 should be retained.

However, he suggested that the marks may be adjusted to

address concerns that have emerged from the experience of

the Supreme Court and High Courts.

L. Submissions of the Supreme Court Arguing Counsel

Association (unregistered)

46. Learned counsel Mr. Anilendra Pande, appearing for

the Supreme Court Arguing Counsel Association

(unregistered), submitted that the designation system

should be all-inclusive, ensuring consideration for Advocates

from rural backgrounds, backward classes, and

marginalized communities.

Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 49 of 89

CONSIDERATION

A. Scheme of Section 16 of the Advocates Act

47. Section 16 of the Advocates Act provides for the

designation of Advocates as Senior Advocates. Section 16

reads thus:

“16. Senior and other advocates.—(1) There

shall be two classes of advocates, namely,

Senior Advocates and other advocates.

(2) An advocate may, with his consent, be

designated as Senior Advocate if the

Supreme Court or a High Court is of

opinion that by virtue of his

ability, standing at the Bar or special

knowledge or experience in law he is

deserving of such distinction.

(3) Senior Advocates shall, in the matter of

their practice, be subject to such restrictions

as the Bar Council of India may, in the

interests of the legal profession, prescribe.

(4) An advocate of the Supreme Court who

was a Senior Advocate of that Court

immediately before the appointed day shall,

for the purposes of this section, be deemed to

be a Senior Advocate:

Provided that where any such Senior

Advocate makes an application before the

31st December, 1965, to the Bar Council

maintaining the roll in which his name has

been entered that he does not desire to

Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 50 of 89

continue as a Senior Advocate, the Bar

Council may grant the application and the

roll shall be altered accordingly.”

(emphasis added)

48. By the Act 60 of 1973, Sub-section (2) was amended.

The words starting from ‘standing’ and ending with ‘law’

were incorporated by the Act 60 of 1973 with effect from 31

st

January, 1974, in place of the words ‘experience and

standing at the Bar’.

49. We may note here that in the statement of objects and

reasons of the Advocates Act, it was mentioned that the

main feature of the Act was the integration of the Bar into a

single class of legal practitioners known as Advocates.

Perhaps, the need was felt to do so by the Legislature as

prior to the commencement of the Advocates Act, there were

different classes of legal practitioners such as Supreme

Court Advocates, High Court Advocates/Pleaders,

Advocates of High Court (OS), District Court Pleaders,

Vakils, Mukhtars, Revenue Agents etc. Though the object

was to make integration of the Bar into a single class, Sub-

section (1) of Section 16 created two classes of Advocates,

Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 51 of 89

namely, Senior Advocates and other Advocates. The power

to designate an Advocate as Senior Advocate is vested with

this Court and the High Courts.

50. There are restrictions imposed by this Court as well as

the High Courts on the designated Senior Advocates. For

example, clause (b) of Rule 2 of Order (IV) of the Supreme

Court Rules, 2013 imposes restriction s on Senior

Advocates. One such restriction is that a Senior Advocate

shall not file a vakalatnama or act in any Court or Tribunal

in India. Another restriction is that he shall not appear

without an Advocate-on-Record (for short ‘AOR’) in the

Court or without a junior in any other Court or Tribunal in

India. Another important restriction is that a Senior

Advocate cannot accept directly from a client any brief or

instructions to appear in any Court or Tribunal in India. We

find that similar restrictions have been imposed on the

Senior Advocates by various High Courts. Under Sub-

section (3) of Section 16, the Bar Council of India has the

power to impose restrictions on the Senior Advocates in the

matter of their practice in the interest of the legal profession.

Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 52 of 89

However, there is nothing placed on record to show that the

Bar Council of India has framed any Rules in terms of Sub-

section (3) of Section 16.

51. Sub-section (2) of Section 16 lays down the

qualifications for designation as a Senior Advocate.

Obviously, the standard of conduct of Senior Advocates in

all respects must be much higher than the standard of other

Advocates. Sub-section (2) refers to ability, standing at the

Bar or special knowledge or experience in law. In our view,

ability and standing at the Bar are two important

qualifications while designating Advocates as Senior

Advocates by Full Court.

(i) Ability

52. When the provision talks about ability, it will include

very sound knowledge of law and especially the branches of

law in which the Advocate is practicing. The ability will also

include, apart from sound knowledge of law, skills of

advocacy, which are required to effectively conduct a case.

It will include mastery over the art of cross-examination in

case of Advocates practicing on the original sides of the High

Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 53 of 89

Court or Trial and District/Sessions Courts. Writing articles

and commentaries on law will be part of ability. Capacity to

rationally critique judicial decisions will be a facet of ability.

(ii) Standing at the Bar

53. As far as the standing at the Bar is concerned, an

Advocate can be said to have standing at the Bar provided

he has certain qualities and a reputation which is built over

a span of time. Standing at the Bar is not defined or

understood with physical number of years an Advocate puts

in. But the standing at the Bar is a mixture of several

qualities of a professional viz: (i) integrity (ii) respect (iii)

confidence (iv) dependability (v) honesty (vi) communication

skills (vii) confidence and (vi ii) commitment to

administration of justice and rule of law. Some of the

qualities which give an Advocate a standing at the Bar are

as follows:

(a) He/she is always fair while conducting cases before

the Courts;

(b) His/her behaviour with the Judges and other

members of the Bar is respectful;

Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 54 of 89

(c) He/she maintains decorum while conducting cases

before the Court;

(d) He/she always acts first as an officer of the Court and,

thereafter, a mouthpiece of his/her client;

(e) He/she follows the highest standards of professional

etiquette and ethics;

(f) He/she acts as a mentor to the junior Advocates;

(g) He/she does pro bono work; and

(h) He/she carries respect in the legal fraternity.

54. We must note here that honesty and integrity are the

qualities which every member of the Bar, whether senior or

otherwise, must possess. This is something basic. Merely

because an Advocate is a good human being, this by itself

does not qualify the Advocate for designation.

(iii) Special Knowledge of Law

55. Sub-section (2) of Section 16 refers to ‘special

knowledge of law’. If an Advocate has special knowledge in

a particular branch of law, that is also a qualification for

Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 55 of 89

designation. There are specialized branches of law such as

the Arbitration, Insolvency and Bankruptcy, Company Law,

Intellectual Property Law, Tax Laws etc. The designation as

a Senior Advocate cannot remain the monopoly of the

Advocates practicing in High Courts and this Court. If the

designations are conferred only to the Advocates practicing

in High Courts and this Court, Section 16(2) will be exposed

to the vice of arbitrariness which is prohibited under Article

14 of the Constitution. The Advocates practicing before Trial

and District Courts or specialized Tribunals can possess

qualification laid down in Section 16(2). The Advocates

practicing in Trial/District Courts may have extraordinary

skills in drafting pleadings and conducting cross-

examination. Considering the very object of the Advocates

Act, we must note that an Advocate practicing in Trial and

District Courts cannot be treated as inferior to an Advocate

who practices in this Court or High Courts. Even such an

Advocate can have ability, standing at the Bar, special

knowledge or experience in law for designating as Senior

Advocate. The qualities of ability, standing at the Bar, and

Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 56 of 89

special knowledge and experience in law are present in the

Advocates practicing in Trial and District Courts as much

as of the Advocates practicing in the High Courts and the

Supreme Court.

B. The reasons recorded for exercise of Jurisdiction

under Article 142 of the Constitution in Indira

Jaising-1

56. The occasion for considering the issue in the case of

Indira Jaising-1 arose as the petitioner therein, a Senior

Advocate filed a writ petition in this Court inter alia seeking

a writ or direction declaring that the system of designation

of Senior Advocates by the 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. As can be seen from

paragraphs 23 and 24 of the decision in the said case, this

Court found that there was no uniform criterion or yardstick

adopted by the High Courts. In paragraph 23, this Court

has noted the practice prevailing in this Court regarding the

designation of Advocates as Senior Advocates. This Court,

Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 57 of 89

thereafter, referred to the practice followed in different High

Courts. In paragraph 24, this Court held thus:

“24. Insofar as the High Courts of the country

are concerned, it appears that there is no

uniform criteria or yardstick. Age; income;

length of practise; requirement of practise in

the High Court in which designation is sought

or in a court subordinate to such High Court,

appear to be the broad parameters which

different High Courts have adopted either by

incorporation of all such parameters or some

or few of them. The position would be clear

from the following resume which indicates

the practice prevailing in different High

Courts of the country.”

56.1 In paragraph 58 of the said decision, this Court

observed that an endeavour should be to lay down

norms/guidelines/parameters to make the exercise

conform to the three requirements of the statute, namely,

the ability of the Advocate concerned, his/her standing and

his/her special knowledge or experience in law. In

paragraphs 69 and 70, this Court observed thus:

“69. The guidelines governing the exercise of

designation by the Supreme Court have

already been noticed so also the guidelines in

force in the various High Courts. Though

steps have been taken to bring in some

Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 58 of 89

objective parameters, we are of the view that

the same must be more comprehensively

considered by this Court to ensure conformity

of the actions/decisions taken under Section

16 of the Act with the requirement of

constitutional necessities, particularly, in the

domain of a fair, transparent and reasonable

exercise of a statutory dispensation on which

touchstone alone the exercise of designation

under Section 16 of the Act can be justified.

We have also noticed the fact that until the

enactment of the Advocates Act, 1961 and the

Supreme Court Rules, 1966 the option to be

designated as a Senior Advocate or not was

left to the advocate concerned, with the Full

Court having no role to play in this regard.

We have also noticed that in other

jurisdictions spread across the Globe, where

the practice continues to be in vogue in one

form or the other, participation in the

decision-making process of other

stakeholders has been introduced in the light

of experience gained.

70. We are, therefore, of the view that the

framework that we would be introducing by

the present order to regulate the system of

designation of Senior Advocates must provide

representation to the community of advocates

though in a limited manner. That apart, we

are also of the view that time has come

when uniform parameters/guidelines

should govern the exercise of designation

of Senior Advocates by all courts of the

country including the Supreme Court. The

Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 59 of 89

sole yardstick by which we propose to

introduce a set of guidelines to govern the

matter is the need for maximum

objectivity in the process so as to ensure

that it is only and only the most deserving

and the very best who would be bestowed

the honour and dignity. The credentials of

every advocate who seeks to be designated

as a Senior Advocate or whom the Full

Court suo motu decides to confer the

honour must be subject to an utmost strict

process of scrutiny leaving no scope for

any doubt or dissatisfaction in the

matter.”

(emphasis added)

56.2 In paragraph 73 of the said decision, this Court held

thus:

“73. It is in the above backdrop that we

proceed to venture into the exercise and lay

down the following norms/guidelines which

henceforth would govern the exercise of

designation of Senior Advocates by the

Supreme Court and all High Courts in the

country. The norms/guidelines, in existence,

shall be suitably modified so as to be in

accord with the present.”

57. It is obvious that an endeavour was made by this

Court to bring about uniformity in the norms/guidelines

followed by this Court and High Courts in the designation

Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 60 of 89

of Advocates as Senior Advocates. This exercise was

undertaken, obviously, invoking the jurisdiction of this

Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India as a

measure to ensure transparency in the process. This step

was also necessitated due to absence of Statutory Rules

framed under the Advocates Act. It was an experiment

made by this Court to bring about uniformity in approach.

An effort was made to make the process more objective.

However, this Court was not oblivious of the fact that the

guidelines may require change s from time to time.

Therefore, in paragraph 74, this Court observed thus:

“74. We are not oblivious of the fact that

the guidelines enumerated above may not

be exhaustive of the matter and may

require reconsideration by suitable

additions/deletions in the light of

the experience to be gained over a period

of time. This is a course of action that we

leave open for consideration by this Court at

such point of time that the same becomes

necessary.”

(emphasis added)

57.1 Thus, this Court has given enough indication that

what was done under Indira Jaising-1 was not final. The

Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 61 of 89

decision itself noted that the need to reconsider the decision

may arise in future.

58. Indira Jaising-1 was decided on 12

th October, 2017.

An endeavour was made by this Court to have a relook at

the guidelines laid down in Indira Jaising-1 while deciding

Indira Jaising-2. From the decision in the case of Indira

Jaising-2, it appears that there was a debate before the

Court mainly on the following issues:

(a) Voting by secret ballot;

(b) Cut-off marks;

(c) The points assigned for publications; and

(d) The personal interview

59. This Court made the following modifications in Indira

Jaising-2:

(i) Voting by secret ballot will remain by way of

exception. In case it is resorted to, the reasons for the

same should be recorded;

(ii) Points for publication were reduced from 15 to 5; and

Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 62 of 89

(iii) The points allocated for reportable and non -

reportable judgments, pro bono work, and domain

expertise under various branches of law were

increased from 40 to 50.

59.1 Paragraphs 32 to 38 of Indira Jaising-2 decision are

relevant which read thus:

“32. The first aspect to be noticed under this

head is that of reported and unreported

judgments. We deem it fit to clarify that it is

not orders (not laying down any proposition

of law) but judgments that have to be

considered. We say so as judgments

ordinarily deal with significant and contested

legal issues.

33. Here, we ought to also consider the role

played by the advocate in the proceedings. In

recent times, and particularly in the Supreme

Court, the number of advocates present for a

matter are very high. However, that is not

ipso facto reflective of the assistance that they

are providing to the Court. A matter may be

argued by a counsel who may be assisted by

others, including an Advocate-on-Record.

Thus, an assessment would have to be

carried out in enquiring into the role played

by the advocate in the matter they have

appeared in with their role specified by them

in their application. Merely looking into the

number of appearances would not be enough.

Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 63 of 89

34. We believe that this would also take care

of any perceived disadvantages arising due to

the larger number of appearances by

Government Counsel, as compared to

counsel who are engaged in private work.

35. One suggestion that we are inclined to

accept is that while analysing the role of

lawyers, the quality of the synopses filed in

Court ought to be considered. Synopses can

be a useful indicator for assessing the

assistance rendered by an advocate to the

Court. Candidates should thus be permitted

to submit five of their best synopses for

evaluation with their applications.

36. Now turning to another aspect under this

head, it may be noticed that many specialised

tribunals have been set up, and several

advocates have concentrated their practice

before such tribunals. The specialised

tribunals are the National Company Law

Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal for Electricity,

Appellate Tribunal under the Prevention of

Money Laundering Act, 2002, Telecom

Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal,

Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission,

etc. This has led to the opening up of various

specialisations, including but not limited to

arbitration, telecom, electricity, energy,

competition, insolvency, and white-collar

crime.

37. Often appeals from those tribunals lie to

this Court and, thus, such advocates also

appear before this Court, although the

Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 64 of 89

frequency of their appearances may be less.

Specialised lawyers with domain expertise

should be permitted to concentrate on their

fields and not be deprived of the opportunity

of being designated as Senior Advocates.

Thus, in the case of such advocates, a

concession is required to be given with

regards to the number of appearances. This

category of advocates and their expertise is

also essential for the advancement of all

specialised fields of law.

38. We also believe that due consideration

should be given in the interest of diversity,

particularly with respect to gender and

first-generation lawyers. This would

encourage meritorious advocates who will

come into the field knowing that there is

scope to rise to the top. The profession has

seen a paradigm shift over a period of

time, particularly with the advent of newer

law schools such as National Law

Universities. The legal profession is no

longer considered as a family profession.

Instead, there are newer entrants from all

parts of the country and with different

backgrounds. Such newcomers must be

encouraged.”

(emphasis added)

59.2 In paragraph 51 of Indira Jaising-2, this Court held

that the process of improvement is continuous, as we learn

from every experience.

Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 65 of 89

60. This Court in Indira Jaising-1 embarked upon the

exercise of laying down uniform standard/practice/

procedure/criteria for designation of Advocates as Senior

Advocates by this Court and High Courts. In essence, it was

an experiment made by this Court, perhaps, only with one

object. It was to ensure that every deserving Advocate who

satisfies the criteria of Sub-section (2) of Section 16 of the Act

gets due consideration resulting in designation as Senior

Advocate. Considering the object of the exercise undertaken

by this Court, the directions issued in exercise of power

under Article 142 were never intended to be final or

understood as substitute to Statutory Rules under the

Advocates Act. Paragraph 74 of Indira Jaising-1 and

paragraph 51 of Indira Jaising-2 clearly contemplate that.

This Court will have to make a course correction as expressed

in paragraph 74 of Indira Jaising-1 again in exercise of its

jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution. The

submissions made by the learned Solicitor General of India,

appearing for the Secretary General of this Court as well as

in his personal capacity, High Courts of Delhi, Karnataka,

Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 66 of 89

Madhya Pradesh and Punjab and Haryana, suggest that

perhaps the directions issued in Indira Jaising-1 have not

worked effectively to achieve the desired objectives.

C. 100 Point based Overall Assessment – The basis of

Decision Making

61. The entire argument revolves around the point-based

overall assessment of the Advocates for designation as Senior

Advocates. The scheme of Indira Jaising-1 stipulates

putting in place a Permanent Committee in this Court and

the High Courts. The Chief Justice and the two senior-most

Judges will be part of the Permanent Committee along with

the Attorney General for India or Advocate General of the

State, as the case may be, and another member of the Bar

nominated by the other four members of the Permanent

Committee. Apart from the Permanent Committee,

Permanent Secretariats were ordered to be established for

receiving applications for designation and processing the

applications.

62. The Permanent Committee was entrusted with the task

of interviewing the applicants and assigning points out of 100

Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 67 of 89

as specified in tabular form in paragraph 73.7 of Indira

Jaising-1. The scheme of the directions is that a point-based

overall assessment is made by the Permanent Committee. All

the names placed before the Permanent Committee, along

with the point-based assessment made by the Committee,

are placed before the Full Court to take a final decision on

designation of an individual Advocate as Senior Advocate.

Thus, the scheme is that the Full Court considers the point-

based overall assessment made by the Permanent Committee

of each applicant who applies for designation and takes a

decision. Though the Full Court may not be bound by the

point-based assessment made by the Permanent Committee,

the assessment made by the Permanent Committee certainly

carries weight as it is made by three senior-most Judges and

two distinguished members of the Bar. Though the scheme

of Indira Jaising 1 and 2 does not confer a power on the

Permanent Committee to recommend names, in practical

terms, the exercise done by the Permanent Committee of

assigning points out of 100 is treated as a recommendation

of certain applicants.

Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 68 of 89

(i) Participation of the Members of the Bar in the

process of 100 Points based Overall Assessment

63. Sub-section (2) of Section 16 confers prerogative on this

Court and High Courts to designate an Advocate as a Senior

Advocate. On the administrative side, this Court and the

High Courts act in accordance with the decision of the Full

Court, consisting of all Hon’ble Judges. By a resolution of the

Full Court, in a given case, the decision-making can be

delegated to a Committee of Judges. But we wonder how

members of the Bar can be a part of the decision-making

process under Sub-section (2) of Section 16 by conferring on

them the power to assign points to each applicant. From the

Statutory perspective, the question troubling us is about the

participation of the Advocates in the actual decision-making

contrary to Sub-section (2) of Section 16. The observation is

made in the contexts of the Statute and not on their

desirability or competence to be the Members of the

Permanent Committee.

64. The two senior members of the Bar who are part of the

Permanent Committee have to interact with the applicants

Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 69 of 89

who have applied for designation. The applicants will be their

colleagues in the profession. Normally, the two members of

the Bar who are members of the Permanent Committee are

expected to be of very high standing. Nevertheless, all the

applicants have access to them. The learned Attorney

General with experience at his command expressed that he

is uncomfortable with the idea of interviews. The reason is

that he found it embarrassing to ask questions as the

applicants were his peers. In any event, the involvement of

members of the Bar in the actual decision-making process by

the Full Court in terms of Sub-section (2) of Section 16

cannot be supported by law. In short, he has rightly raised

an issue of propriety. From what we have seen during the

seven and a half years after Indira Jaising-1, perhaps, the

involvement of the members of the Bar in the process calls

for serious reconsideration. We hasten to add that this is no

reflection on the capabilities of the Senior Advocates who

have acted as members of the Permanent Committees. The

Courts seeking views of senior members of the Bar on some

of the applicants is completely different from allowing senior

Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 70 of 89

members of the Bar to become a part of the decision-making

process of the Permanent Committee. Sub-section (2) of

Section 16 may not be averse to allowing consultation by the

High Court/this Court with the senior members of the Bar.

However, the provision does not allow the participation of the

Bar members in the actual decision-making process. The

effects of such participation have been brought to our notice

across the Bar. Suffice it to say that the participation of two

senior members of the Bar will need reconsideration.

(ii) Duration of Practice

65. We have noted that in Sub-section (2) of Section 16, as

it existed prior to 31

st January, 1974, the criteria was ability,

experience and standing at the Bar. After the amendment

with effect from 31

st January, 1974, the criterion of ability

and standing at the Bar remain. What is added is special

knowledge or experience in law. The intention of the

Legislature, as reflected in the amendment, is that mere

experience in the profession cannot be the criterion .

Therefore, the experience simpliciter is done away with and

replaced by “experience in law”. In the point-based format,

Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 71 of 89

20 points have been provided for practice beyond 20 years

and 10 or more points for 10 to 20 years. There is no doubt

that no Advocate can be said to have standing contemplated

by Sub-section (2) of Section 16, unless he has spent a

sufficiently long time in the profession.

66. There can be many members of the Bar who have a long

presence in the profession. There are many members of the

Bar who continue to practice for a long time, though their

appearances are minimal. Only the number of years spent in

practice cannot be a major criterion for designation by any

stretch of imagination. Let us test with an example i.e. a

member of the Bar, who has not performed or is not up to the

mark, can get 20 points out of 100 only on the ground that

he or she has continued to be a member of the Bar for more

than 20 years. Therefore, in our view, assigning points on the

basis of experience in terms of the number of years is

something which will require reconsideration as it does not

serve the object sought to be achieved by this Court.

Moreover, the length of practice cannot be a rational

criterion. On the contrary, it will help those who do not

Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 72 of 89

deserve designation as they will get points on the basis of the

number of years in practice.

(iii) Interview or Interaction

67. Now, we come to the interview or interaction of the

Permanent Committee with the Advocates applying for

designation. The question is whether an Advocate, who by

virtue of his ability and standing at the Bar deserves

designation, can be subjected to an interview by the

Permanent Committee. When we pose d this query to Ms.

Indira Jaising, Senior Advocate, she fairly stated that while

she argued Indira Jaising-1, she never suggested that there

should be a requirement of an interview or interaction with

the applicants.

68. The designation of an Advocate as a Senior Advocate is

different from making an appointment to the post. The

question is whether it is fair to assess personality and

suitability only on the basis of a brief interview for a few

minutes, and whether the Permanent Committee can assess

personality and suitability by assigning points out of 25,

Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 73 of 89

which again constitute 1/4

th of the total points. Interaction

or interview for a few minutes by any standard is not

sufficient to assess the personality and suitability of the

concerned Advocate. Such brief interactions can at best give

an outer view of the applicant. The points out of 25 have to

be assigned by assessing personality and suitability only on

the basis of the applicant’s performance in the interview.

Hence, if someone is impressive in an interview, he or she

can get very good marks even if his or her general reputation

is not up to the mark.

69. After Indira Jaising-1, this Court and High Courts

have conducted a number of exercises for designating

Advocates as Senior Advocates. In many such processes,

there were more than 100 applicants. It may be appropriate,

on this background, to ask a difficult question to ourselves

whether the Permanent Committees devoted sufficient time

to each applicant for assessing personality and suitability.

We do not think there will be any serious disagreement on

the obvious answer.

Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 74 of 89

70. It is not out of place to observe that subjecting an

Advocate having standing at the Bar to interview by three

senior-most Judges and two senior members of the Bar

violates the dignity of the noble profession.

(iv) Reported and Unreported Judgments, Pro Bono

Work and Domain Expertise/Experience

71. The Advocates who apply for designation submit a

number of reported and unreported judgments indicating

the legal formulations advanced by them in the course of

proceedings before the Court. In Indira Jaising-2, this

Court expressed that even the written submissions or

synopses filed by the Advocates should be considered for

assigning points out of 50 points. The applicants are

submitting a large number of Judgments and copies of

written submissions/synopses running into hundreds of

pages. It is very difficult to assess whether the submissions

recorded in the Judgments are made by that particular

Advocate, even if his name appears in the Judgment, unless

the judgment specifically mentions that a particular

submission was made by the named Advocate. Similarly,

Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 75 of 89

written submissions filed may not be a product of an

individual effort, but may be a collective effort by a team of

Advocates. It is not possible to accept that the Permanent

Committee is in a position to come to the conclusion that the

submissions reflected in the Judgments and written

submissions/synopsis are the submissions made by the

applicant concerned, so as to assign points out of 50, which

constitute ½ of the total points.

72. Three senior-most Judges of this Court or High Courts

have onerous duties to discharge not only on the judicial

side, but, on the administrative side as well. They have to

devote hours together to administrative work. If they are

required to assign points out of 50 on the basis of Judgments

and written submissions, we wonder how many working

hours will be required to go through the documents

submitted by individual Advocates. We made a query to the

learned Attorney General for India whether he could find time

to go through so many judgments as well as publications

submitted by the applicants. In his usual fairness, he was

candid enough to tell the Court that the exercise was very

Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 76 of 89

difficult and tiring or may not be to the extent needed. We

cannot say that the members of the Committee are able to go

through every document. Moreover, this makes the process

very subjective. A suggestion was made that this exercise can

be outsourced to the Registrars/Centre for Research and

Planning (CRP). We do not think that this important work can

be outsourced to any entity or group of individuals.

(v) Publications

73. If an Advocate has authored articles or a thesis on

complex legal issues or has published books on legal subjects

to his credit, depending upon the quality of writing, it adds

to the standing of the Advocate. However, it will be unjust to

give weightage to such work done by the Advocate by

assigning points out of 5. Writing articles or books is not an

essential criterion for designation. It is an additional

consideration.

74. The experience of the last seven and a half years shows

that it may not be rationally or objectively possible to assess

calibre, standing at the Bar, and the experience in law of the

Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 77 of 89

Advocates who apply for designation on the basis of a point-

based format. That has not achieved the desired objective.

There is another important aspect which is relevant. No

specific points have been assigned for the character, honesty

and integrity. The point-based assessment, as can be seen

from the earlier discussion, can hardly be objective, and it

tends to be highly subjective.

D. Reconsideration in terms of Paragraph 74 of Indira

Jaising-1 and paragraph 51 of Indira Jaising-2

75. We have already held in paragraph 60 that considering

the object of the exercise undertaken by this Court, the

directions issued in Indira Jaising-1 and 2 were never

intended to be final. Indira Jaising-1 specifically records

need for reconsiderations by suitable additions/deletions in

the light of the experience to be gained over a period of time.

Even Indira Jaising-2 reiterates this position and holds that

the process of improvement is continuous, based on our

experience. What we have held in earlier paragraphs shows

that the system of 100 point-based assessment has not

achieved the desired objectives. Moreover, the experience

Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 78 of 89

shows that the points-based assessment is not flawless. We

have realized that with experience. Therefore, paragraph 73.7

deserves deletion in exercise of powers reserved in paragraph

74 of Indira Jaising-1 read with paragraph 51 in Indira

Jaising-2. When we do this, it will not amount to review or

recall of the decisions. After finding that the point-based

assessment is not workable, we will be failing in our duty if

we fail to do what we are expected to do in the light of

paragraph 74 of Indira Jaising-1.

E. Judges Recommending Candidates

76. On plain reading of Sub-section (2) of Section 16, the

Legislature never contemplated an Advocate making an

application seeking designation. The scheme of Sub-section

(2) of Section 16 indicates that designation has to be

conferred by the Supreme Court or the High Courts. The

scheme of Sub-section (2) of Section 16 indicates that an

individual Judge of the Supreme Court or the High Court, as

the case may be, cannot recommend any Advocate for

designation as the decision is a collective decision of the Full

Court. Even if an Advocate deserving of a designation does

Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 79 of 89

not apply for designation, on the basis of the discussion in

the house, the Full Court can always recommend his /her

designation, subject to his/her consent. For that purpose,

the recommendation in writing of an individual Judge is not

warranted.

F. Whether Applications for Designations are warranted

77. Obviously, this Court or the High Court cannot

designate any Advocate as a Senior Advocate without his

consent. The strength of the Bar is ever-increasing.

Therefore, it would practically not be possible to seek the

consent of a large number of deserving Advocates. Therefore,

the practice of making a formal application can be continued.

An Act of making application will amount to consent of the

Advocate for being considered for designation. Act of making

such applications may not necessarily amount to soliciting

the designation. The practice of allowing applications to be

made has practical advantages. The educational

qualifications, experience in law, field of practice, income, pro

bono work, work of mentoring juniors, articles and books,

writing publications, etc., are relevant in the process of

Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 80 of 89

designation. Instead of the Court’s Registry calling for these

details, it becomes more convenient if the Advocates furnish

the details along with their applications. We, therefore, find

no difficulty in continuing the practice of Advocates applying

for designation. In view of what we have held earlier, a

deserving Advocate who does not apply can be always be

designated after obtaining his consent.

G. Diversity and Inclusivity in the Process

78. Ms. Indira Jaising is absolutely correct when she

candidly submitted that the designation cannot be the

monopoly of the selected few. She submitted that diversity is

of great deal of importance. All members of the Bar who

belong to different classes must get equal opportunity in the

matter of designation. It is important to encourage first-

generation Advocates. She is right in submitting that the

process of designation must be objectively fair and guided.

For that purpose, there is a need to have at least one exercise

of designation conducted every year.

Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 81 of 89

79. 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.

H. Income and Minimum Practice

80. 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

Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 82 of 89

assessed only if the Advocate has practiced for a reasonably

long time.

I. Secret Ballot

81. Another contentious issue is whether there should be a

secret ballot in the Full House. In Full Court meetings, there

is always an endeavour made to bring about consensus in

decision-making on all subjects. But, where consensus

cannot be arrived at notwithstanding best efforts, the

decision-making must be in a democratic manner by majority

vote. There cannot be any hard and fast rule laid down that

the secret ballot should never be resorted to. It all depends

on circumstances. Therefore, the question whether there

should be a secret ballot must be left to the wisdom of the

Full Court. But the decision-making on designation, as far as

possible, should be by consensus. If that is not possible, the

decision-making must be by a democratic process and shall

be governed by a majority of votes.

Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 83 of 89

J. Practice of Senior Advocates using a Special Gown

82. Another issue raised by Ms. Indira Jaising was that the

practice of designated Senior Advocates using different type

of gowns has no basis in the Advocates Act. Therefore,

according to her, this practice deserves to be discontinued.

It is for the High Courts to take a call on this aspect while

framing rules.

K. Need to frame proper Rules

83. Even in the absence of a specific provision under the

Advocates Act, this Court and High Courts, being the

Constitutional Courts, have a power to frame rules. The

power of this Court can be traced to Article 145(1)(a). The

High Courts can exercise power under Article 227(2)(b). It is

necessary that proper Rules must be framed dealing with the

entire process of designating Advocates as Senior Advocates.

The object of the rules must be to bring objectivity,

transparency and fair play in the entire process. The rule

making power in this behalf can also be traced to Sub-section

(1) of Section 34 of the Advocates Act which reads thus:

Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 84 of 89

“Section 34: Power of High Courts to make

rules.

(1) The High Court may make rules

laying down the conditions subject to which

an advocate shall be permitted to practise in

the High Court and the courts subordinate

thereto.”

84. 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

Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 85 of 89

rejection of earlier application. The Rules can provide for the

form of application, required documents etc.

L. Permanent Secretariat

85. We, however, are of the view that the Permanent

Secretariat, as proposed in Indira Jaising-1, must continue

to exist for processing applications, as the collection of data

is very important for the correct decision-making process.

While framing Rules, a proper framework can be provided for

the working of the Permanent Secretariat and its duties.

M. Need to Periodically Review the Procedure

86. 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

Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 86 of 89

left out of the process of designation and not a single

undeserving person is designated.

CONCLUSIONS

87. 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

Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 87 of 89

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

Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 88 of 89

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.

88. 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

Criminal Appeal No.865 of 2025 etc. Page 89 of 89

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.

89. The issues referred are answered accordingly.

90. 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.

..…………………...J.

(Abhay S. Oka)

..…………………... J.

(Ujjal Bhuyan)

..…………………...J .

(S.V.N. Bhatti)

New Delhi;

May 13, 2025