1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 454 OF 2015

MS. INDIRA JAISING ...PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

THROUGH SECRETARY GENERAL

AND ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

T.C. (C) No. 1 of 2017,

WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 33 OF 2016; AND

WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 819 OF 2016.

J U D G M E N T

RANJAN GOGOI,J.

1. The petitioner in Writ Petition (C)

No. 454 of 2015 is a Senior Advocate

designated by the High Court of Bombay in the

year 1986. She has been in practice in the

Supreme Court of India for the last several

decades and has also served as an Additional

Solicitor General for the Union of India. The

perception of the petitioner that the present

system of designation of Senior Advocates in

the Supreme Court of India is flawed and the

2

system needs to be rectified and acceptable

parameters laid down has led to the

institution of Writ Petition (C) No. 454 of

2015 with the following prayers.

“(a) Issue writ order, or

direction declaring that the system

of designation of Senior Advocates

by 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; and

(b) Issue writ order or

direction for appointment of a

permanent Selection Committee with a

secretariat headed by a lay person,

which includes the Respondent 4

Attorney General of India,

representatives from the Respondent

5 –SCBA and the Respondent 6- AOR

Association and academics, for the

designation of Senior Advocates on

the basis of an assessment made on a

point system as suggested in

Annexure P8; and

(c) Issue a writ of mandamus or

direction directing the Respondent-1

representing Chief Justice and

Judges of the Supreme Court to

appoint a Search Committee to

identify the Advocates who conduct

Public Interest Litigation (PIL)

cases and Advocates who practice in

the area of their Domain Expertise

viz., constitutional law,

international arbitration,

3

inter-State water disputes, cyber

laws etc. and to designate them as

Senior Advocates;

(d) Issue a writ of mandamus or

direction directing the Respondent-1

representing Chief Justice and

Judges of the Supreme Court to frame

guidelines requiring the preparation

of an Assessment Report by the Peers

Committee on the Advocates who apply

for designation based on an index

100 points as suggested in Annexure

P8;

(e) Issue a writ of mandamus or

direction directing the Respondent-1

representing Chief Justice and

Judges of the Supreme Court to

reconsider its decision taken in the

Full Court held on 11.02.2014 and

23.04.2015 and designate as Senior

Advocate all those Advocates whose

applications seeking designation had

received recommendation by not less

than five Judges of the Supreme

Court (including deferred

applicants) during the process of

circulation ordered by the Chief

Justice.”

2. Legal practice in India, though a

booming profession, success has come to a few

select members of the profession, the vast

majority of them being designated Senior

Advocates. The issues raised in the writ

petition, therefore, are highly contentious

issues raising question of considerable

4

magnitude so far as the Indian Bar and in

fact the Country’s legal system is concerned.

Intervention applications, as expected, have

been filed by several individuals and

associations, including the Bar Association

of India. The Attorney General for India was

requested to appear in the case and he has

very magnanimously responded to the request

of the Court by remaining present throughout

the prolonged hearing that had taken place.

3.By Order of the Court dated 24.04.2017

passed in I.A. No. 5, notice of this case was

directed to be put up on the website of this

Court to enable the High Courts and the Bar

Associations of the different High Courts to

participate in the proceedings. Pursuant

thereto many High Courts have communicated to

the Registry of this Court “the Rules –

(Guidelines)” framed by the High Courts in

the matter of designation of Senior

Advocates. The Gujarat High Court Advocates’

5

Association has filed an intervention

application (I.A. No. 53321 of 2017) which

goes beyond four corners of the writ petition

itself inasmuch as the association has

challenged the validity of Section 16 of the

Advocates Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to

as “the Act”) which empowers the Supreme

Court or a High Court to designate Senior

Advocates. In view of the importance of the

issue, we have permitted the Gujarat High

Court Advocates’ Association to urge all

contentions, as raised, by virtually treating

the Intervention application filed to be a

substantive writ petition. Over and above,

there is a writ petition filed before the

Delhi High Court which has been transferred

to this Court for being heard along with Writ

Petition (C) No. 454 of 2015. In the said

writ petition (Writ Petition (C) No. 6331 of

2016 titled “National Lawyers Campaign for

Judicial Transparency and Reforms and Anr.

6

vs. The Bar Council of India & Anr”) Section

16 of the Act as well as Rule 2 of Chapter IV

of the Supreme Court Rules 2013 has been

challenged as constitutionally impermissible.

Alternatively, it has been prayed that the

designation of Senior Advocates by the

Supreme Court of India as well as the High

Courts of the country be rationalized by

laying down acceptable parameters to govern

the exercise of designation. There is yet

another connected writ petition i.e. Writ

Petition (C) No. 33 of 2016 filed by The High

Court of Meghalaya Bar Association, which was

heard by this Court separately on 14.09.2017.

In the aforesaid writ petition the validity

of the guidelines framed by the High Court of

Meghalaya for designation of Senior

Advocate(s) on 13.1.2016 is under challenge.

By the aforesaid amendment, an Advocate

General of any State of the Country so long

as he himself is a designated Senior Advocate

7

and any Senior Advocate practicing in any

High Court has been authorized to propose the

name of an Advocate, practicing in any court

of the Country, for designation as a Senior

Advocate by the High Court of Meghalaya. In

other words, the effect of the amendment, in

departure to the prevailing practice, is to

enable any Senior Advocate of any High Court

to propose the name of any Advocate

practicing in any High Court in the country

for designation as a Senior Advocate of the

Meghalaya High Court. Also challenged is the

amendment of the said Guidelines made on

31.03.2015 by which the requirement of

practice of 5 years in any Court within the

jurisdiction of the High Court of Meghalaya

has been deleted and instead 5 years practice

in any court, namely, the Supreme Court of

India, High Courts or District Courts has

been introduced as a condition of eligibility

for designation. Writ Petition (C) No. 819 of

8

2016 also raises the very same questions.

4. We will deal with each of the cases

separately and in the order in which,

according to us, the cases should receive our

consideration.

5. Before embarking upon what has been

indicated above, it is necessary to go back

into history and trace the origins of what

today has come to be recognized as a special

class of Advocates, namely, Senior Advocates.

6. The profession of Advocacy was

firmly in existence in the Greek and Roman

legal systems. Emperor Justinian (circa

482-565) had put lawyers in a high pedestal

comparing them with regular soldiers engaged

in the defence of the empire, inasmuch as

with the gift of advocacy, lawyers protect

the hopes, the lives and the children of

those who are in serious distress.

7. Towards the end of the Medieval

9

Period (500 A.D. to 1500 A.D.), the Roman Law

had made inroads in the rest of Europe

influencing it immensely. The reason

attributed to this is the discovery of the

Corpus Juris Civilis (Civil Law) in the 11

th

century. While in other countries Civil Law

prevailed, in England, Common Law emerged.

The Magna Carta came into being in year 1215.

It has been said that, “of the rise of

advocacy in England, not a great deal can be

said of the ancient origin of the profession

in that country, for much of it is hazed in

uncertainty. Very early in the history of

England, justice was crudely and arbitrarily

administered. The village moots, the shire

courts, and in feudal times, the barons’

courts, administered justice without

formality. A lawyer was not a necessity.”

1

During these times, the practice of advocacy

1 Robbins, American Advocacy, page 4; ‘Origin

and Development of Advocacy as a Profession’, Virginia

Law Review Volume 9, No. 1 (November, 1922), page 28.

10

was within the realm of priests, monks (it be

reminded, that these are the times when the

Church Law/Canon Law prevailed). While the

priests/the clergy would be insistent upon

the study and application of the Civil Law

and Common Law and of the hybrid of both, the

nobility/laity (privileged class/aristocracy,

but not privileged to undertake priestly

responsibilities) would adhere to the Common

Law. This led to dissatisfaction amongst both

these classes (clergy and nobility). “The

early English lawyers, in the main, seem to

have been ecclesiastics, but about the year

1207, priest, and persons in holy orders

generally were forbidden to act as advocates

in the secular courts, and from

thenceforward we find the profession

composed entirely of a specially trained

class of laymen.”

2

2 Warvelle, Essays in Legal Ethics, page 27;

‘Origin and Development of Advocacy as a Profession’,

Virginia Law Review Volume 9, No. 1 (November, 1922),

page 30

11

8. It was in the 13

th

century that, the

professional lawyers emerged in England,

after a centralised system for courts had

been established to exercise the royal

prerogative of dispensing justice. While

earlier, a litigant could resort to the help

of a knowledgeable friend, the litigation

soon became complex and opened room for

expert assistance. In this backdrop, came

into being two classes of lawyers –

‘Pleaders’ and ‘Attorneys’. The Attorneys

would perform the representative functions

for the litigant. Attorney’s act would be the

act of the litigant. Their functions would

comprise administrative activities like

serving process, following lis progress etc.

The Pleaders, on the other hand, would be the

voice of the aggrieved. Their functions would

include a relatively more complex league of

activities – formulating pleadings, arguing

questions of law before the courts.

12

9. By the time 13

th

century concluded, a

distinguished class of senior pleaders with

considerable status and experience emerged,

and they came to be known as

Serjeants-at-Law. These eminent pleaders had

some special privileges. These were retained

specially by the King, and had exclusive

rights of audience before the Court of Common

Pleas and other Common Law Courts like King’s

Bench. It was mandatory for the serjeants to

have taken the coif, and as a consequence of

this headdress, their corporate society was

called as the Order of the Coif. The

serjeants were at the pinnacle of the legal

profession for a long time and it is from

this pool of men that the selection of judges

would be made. They were so exclusive and

rare, that at a given point of time, there

would be only about ten serjeants in the

practice of the law. It would be the

13

serjeants’ arguments that would get reported

in the year books, and since they had the

exclusive audience rights in the Common Law

Courts, the evolution of Common Law

jurisprudence has been attributed to them.

Soon, they acquired great eminence and close

affinity with the judges as well. It is said,

that they had more judicial element than the

practicing element. Exclusive audience rights

made them most affluent legal practitioners

of that era and they remained to be

distinguished and most prominent jurists

during the 13

th

to 16

th

century i.e. during

the period when the most of the civil

litigation would be carried out at the Court

of Common Pleas.

10. After this point of time, these

awe-inspiring class of legal practitioners

witnessed a decline. The descent in their

Order has been referenced to the rise of

14

Crown Law Officers like the Attorney-General,

Solicitor General. These Crown Law Officers

were retained by the monarch as

‘Counsels-in-Ordinary ’; however, the eminent

order of serjeants sustained a more perilous

dent in the 16

th

century when the Office of

Queen’s Counsel came to fore. This was an

unprecedented office. In the year 1597,

Francis Bacon was appointed by Queen

Elizabeth I as “ Learned Counsel

Extraordinary”, without patent (i.e. it was

not a formal order). In 1603, the King

designated Francis Bacon as the King’s

Counsel, and bestowed upon him the right of

pre-audience and precedence, and a few years

later, in 1670, it was declared that the

serjeants shall not take precedence over this

new league of officers, thus relegating the

otherwise eminent serjeants to a somewhat

subordinate position, and eventually their

decline. The final straw; however, was in the

15

year 1846 when the Court of Common Pleas was

made open to the entire Bar and in the year

1875 when the Judicature Act was enacted that

removed the requirement for the judges to

have taken the coif.

11. It is not clear as to why the Office

of Queen’s Counsel was really needed,

however, they were appointed to assist the

other Crown Law Officers. Further, bestowing

of such designations, as a favour, was a

common feature of this era. The Queen’s

Counsels in return for a small remuneration

held permanent retainers and they were

prohibited from appearing against the Crown.

And, in return, they would be entitled to

enjoy the valuable right of pre-audience

before the courts. These counsels were

required to wear silk gowns (till date,

Queen’s Counsels are either referred to as

‘silks’, or when elevated to this office,

16

they are said to have ‘taken silk’).

Gradually; however, the cleavage between the

Queen’s Counsel/King’s Counsel and Law

Officers disappeared. The appointments as

Queen’s Counsel were made to recognize

professional eminence, or political

influence; but soon thereafter, the public

nature of the office declined. They were no

longer required to assist the Crown Law

Officers. During the 18th century, selection

as Queen’s Counsel became a matter of honour

and dignity and a recognition of professional

eminence. And, in the year 1920, the

injunction on a Queen’s Counsel to appear

against the Crown, was vacated too

3

.

12. The process of appointment of

Queen’s Counsel in United Kingdom came in for

sharp criticism for reasons like

anti-competitive practices, propagation of

3 ‘Lawyers’ by Julian Disney, Paul Redmond,

John Basten, Stan Ross; 2

nd

Edition; The Law Book Company

Limited, 1986.

17

coterie etc.. It was felt that the selection

process was secretive and admission and

appointment of a Queen’s counsel was

virtually like an admission to an exclusive

club. Recommendations were made by Sir

Leonard Peach (appointed by the then Lord

Chancellor) in a report titled as “An

Independent Scrutiny of the Appointments

Process of Judges and Queen’s Counsel in

England and Wales”. In another report, titled

as “Report on Competition in Professions”

published by Director General of Fair

Trading, United Kingdom in the year 2001, the

monopolistic nature of the practice that

develops after appointment as a Queen’s

counsel was highlighted. Some of the

observations recorded in the said report

would be worthy of notice for the purpose of

appreciating the issues that have arisen

before us. We would therefore reproduce the

relevant extracts of the report hereinafter.

18

“276. The appointments system

(despite recent reform following the

Peach report) does not appear to

operate as a genuine quality mark.

The system is secretive and, so far

as we can tell, lacks objective

standards. It also lacks some of the

key features of a recognised

accreditation system, such as

examinations, peer review, fixed

term appointments and quality

appraisal to ensure that the quality

mark remains justified. We were told

that many solicitors and some

barristers criticise the lack of

objectivity of the system.

277.xxx

278. In our view, therefore, the

existing Queen’s Counsel system does

not operate as a genuine quality

accreditation scheme. It thus

distorts competition among junior

and senior barristers. Our evidence

indicates that clients do not

generally need the assistance of a

quality mark, but if there is to be

such a scheme, it should be

administered by the profession

itself on transparent and objective

grounds. Furthermore, there is some

evidence that an informal quota is

in operation within the current

Queen’s Counsel appointment system,

and that it appears to have the

effect of raising fees charged to

litigation clients.

279. We do not think that a mark of

quality or experience is necessarily

anticompetitive, so long as the

award is governed by transparent and

objective criteria, and restrictions

19

are based on qualitative, rather

than quantitative, factors. On the

evidence available to us, however,

the current system does not pass

these tests.”

13. On account of such and similar

highly adverse views in the matter, details

of some of which have been noticed above, in

the year 2004-2005 the appointment of Queen’s

Counsel was suspended temporarily. It was

felt that the designation/appointment may be

abolished in the light of growing concerns of

many. However, a new framework was brought

into existence in the year 2005, the salient

features whereof are set out below:

“The recommendations are made by an

independent body called as Queen’s

Counsel Selection Panel annually.

The final appointments are made by

the Queen on the advice of the Lord

Chancellor, following consideration

by this Panel; the Panel comprises

retired judges, senior barristers,

solicitors, distinguished lay member

(who also chairs the Panel). After

an application is made by the

aspirant to the Panel, professional

conduct checks are performed;

thereafter, the list of candidates

is sent to members of the

20

Judiciary/Bench including the Lord

Chief Justice, the Master of the

Rolls, President of the Queen’s

Bench Division etc. These

distinguished Bench members can

raise objections regarding the

candidate’s integrity and the Panel

will then allow the candidate to

show cause. Additionally, the

candidates are required to submit

written references from judges,

fellow practitioners, professional

clients to enable the understanding

of the candidate’s demonstration of

competencies. Interviews are then

conducted by Panel members with a

view to adducing further evidence as

to the candidate’s demonstration of

competencies. After the interview,

candidates are graded by two Panel

members; then the full Selection

Panel conducts a review of these

initial grades. After collective

moderation, scrutiny of borderline

cases, the final list is prepared.

While inviting applications every

year, emphasis is laid on obtaining

representation from all quarters —

like, women, LGBTQ community, other

ethnicities, persons with

disabilities.”

14. At this stage, we may take notice

of what is the prevailing practice in some

other jurisdictions.

NIGERIA

(Nomenclature- Senior Advocate of Nigeria)

21

The Legal Practitioners’ Privileges Committee

(established under the Legal Practitioners

Act, 2004) may, by instrument, confer on a

legal practitioner the rank of Senior

Advocate of Nigeria.

The award of the rank of Senior Advocate of

Nigeria is a privilege awarded as mark of

excellence to members of the legal profession

who are in full time legal practice; who have

distinguished themselves as advocates; who

have made significant contribution to the

development of the legal profession.

The Committee shall consist of the Chief

Justice (as Chairman); the Attorney General;

one Justice of the Supreme Court; the

President of the Court of Appeal; five Chief

Judges of the States; Chief Judge of the

Federal High Court; five legal practitioners

who are Senior Advocates of Nigeria.

1. Principles: The award shall be an

independent indication of excellence in

the legal profession. It is to provide a

public identification of advocates whose

standing and achievement would justify an

expectation on the part of clients, the

judiciary and the public that they can

provide outstanding services as advocates

and advisers in the overall best interest

of administration of justice; every

effort shall be made to ensure that the

conferment of the rank of Senior Advocate

of Nigeria on candidates who have met the

criteria reflect national character by

achieving as much geographical spread and

gender representation as is possible

22

2. Role of the Legal Practitioners’

Privileges Committee : The Committee shall

exercise full control and management of

the process of appointing and preserving

the dignity of the Rank of Senior

Advocate of Nigeria. The primary mode of

consultation will be by way of

confidential reference from Judges of

superior Courts, not as primary means of

selection of candidates but more as a

final check in the selection procedure.

3.Methods of Appointment : Call for

Applications will be made not later than

7th January (or such other date).

Application in the prescribed form must

be returned not later than 31st March of

the year (or such other date) to the

Committee Secretariat at the Supreme

Court of Nigeria. Candidate shall pay a

non-refundable processing fee in the sum

of 400,000 Naira (or such other sum).

4. References by Judges and Legal

Practitioners & Particulars of Contested

Cases: The application form shall require

each candidate to provide a list of at

least 10 judges of superior courts before

whom he had appeared in contested cases

of significance. The Committee will

select three Judges from the list

provided by the candidate from whom it

will request a detailed confidential

reference. The judges will be selected in

such a manner as to ensure that a cross

section of Judges from different Courts

is represented.

The application form shall require

candidates to identify at least 6 legal

practitioners by whom the candidate has

23

been led or that have led or against whom

by whom the candidate has been led or

that have led or against whom they have

appeared, in contested cases of

significance. The Committee will select 3

such legal practitioners’ from the list

from whom it will request a detailed

written confidential reference.

The candidate has to provide particulars

of contested cases which s/he considers

to be of particular significance to the

evaluation of his competence in legal

practice and contribution to the

development of the law.

5.Competence/Yardsticks : A Candidate must –

(a) demonstrate high professional and

personal integrity; (b) be honest and

straightforward in all his

professional/personal dealings; (c) be of

good character and reputation; (d) be

candid with clients and professional

colleagues; (e) demonstrate high level of

understanding of cultural and social

diversity characteristic of the Nigerian

society; (f) show observance of the Code

of Conduct and Etiquette at the Bar; (g)

demonstrate tangible contribution to the

development of the Law through case Law

or publications in recognized journals at

national/international conferences

considered by the Committee to be of

particular significance; (h) have been

involved in the provision of at least 3

pro bono legal services for indigent

clients or some form of community

services.

6.Oral Interview : There will be oral

interview at the final stage to enable

24

the Committee to verify the information

provided and afford the committee a

further opportunity to ascertain the

candidates’ competence. Before the oral

interview, the number of candidates shall

be pruned to a final list not exceeding

three times the number of applicants to

be appointed.

7.Interview Process : The Committee shall

constitute sub-committees which shall

comprise of three members. Every

candidate that makes the short list shall

be interviewed by a sub-committee.

The evaluation of the candidate’s

competence shall be based on the

following weighted criteria—

a)Integrity – 20%

b)Opinion of Justices/Judges and the

strength of references received by

candidates – 20%

c)General knowledge of Law – 25%

d)Contribution to development of Law – 10%

e)Leadership qualities in the profession –

10%

f)Qualities of Law Office/Library - 15%

AUSTRALIA

In Australia, Senior Counsel is a person who

is admitted to practise as a barrister and

solicitor of the Supreme Court of the

Australian Capital Territory and who

practises exclusively or substantially as

counsel (Senior Counsel SC, previously

described as Queen’s Counsel (QC).

The Senior Counsel Protocol, states that

25

designation as Senior Counsel is intended to

serve the public, whose standing and

achievements justify an expectation, on the

part of the those who may need their

services, as well as on the part of the

judiciary and the public, that they can

provide outstanding services as independent

barristers of the private bar, for the good

of the administration of justice. Moreover,

Appointment as Senior Counsel should be

restricted to Local Practising Barristers,

Ordinary Members Class A, with

acknowledgment of the importance of the work

performed by way of giving advice as well as

appearing in or sitting on courts and other

tribunals and conducting or appearing in

alternative dispute resolution, including

arbitrations and mediations.

Process for appointment:

President of the Australian Capital

Territory (“ACT”) Bar calls for applications

for appointment as Senior Counsel after

which the applicant (junior counsel) submits

the application in writing to the President

accompanying with an application fee as set.

Applications for appointment as Senior

Counsel may also be accepted from Government

Practising Certificate Holders issued by the

ACT Bar Association. Applicants must provide

in respect of all cases, including contested

interlocutory applications (but excluding

directions hearings), in which they have

appeared in the last 18 months, and if

desired, a longer period:

(a)the name of the case and, if available,

its citation;

(b)the name of the judicial officer,

tribunal or arbitrator before whom they

appeared;

(c)the name of any counsel who led them or

whom they led;

26

(d)the name of opposing counsel;

(e)the name of their instructing solicitor;

and

(f)a brief description of the nature of the

proceedings.

The details required in (a) to (f) may be

modified in alternative dispute resolution

matters or otherwise when confidentiality

required.

The applicants must also identify not more

than five members of the profession who are

familiar with their recent work and

qualities (references).

Criteria for selection : The following

qualities are required to a high degree

before the appointment:

(a)learning: Must be learned in the law so

as to provide sound guidance to their

clients and to assist in the judicial

interpretation and development of the

law.

(b)Skill: Must be skilled in the

presentation and testing of litigants’

cases, so as to enhance the likelihood

of just outcomes in adversarial

proceedings.

(c)Integrity and honesty: Must be worthy of

confidence and implicit trust by the

judiciary and their colleagues at all

times, so as to advance the open, fair

and efficient administration of justice.

(d)Independence: Must be committed to the

discharge of counsel’s duty to the

court, especially in cases where that

duty may conflict with clients’

interests.

(e)Disinterestedness: Those who are in

private practice must honour the

27

cab-rank rules; namely, the duty to

accept briefs to appear for which they

are competent and available, regardless

of any personal opinions of the parties

or the causes, and subject only to

exceptions related to appropriate fees

and conflicting obligations.

(f)Diligence: Must have the capacity and

willingness to devote themselves to the

vigorous advancement of the clients’

interests.

(g)Experience: Must have the perspective

and knowledge of legal practice acquired

over a considerable period.

Also, some or all of the following may be

demonstrated by the Advocate’s practice:

i)Experience in arguing cases on appeal;

ii)A position of leadership in a

specialist jurisdiction;

iii)Experience in conducting major cases in

which the other party is represented by

Senior Counsel;

iv)Experience in conducting cases with a

junior;

v)Considerable practice in giving advice

in specialist fields of law;

vi)Experience and practice in alternative

dispute resolution, including

arbitration and mediations; and

vii)Experience in sitting on courts or

tribunals.

Additionally, demonstrated leadership in:

i)Developing the diverse community of the

Bar; or

ii)Making a significant contribution to

Australian society as a barrister.

Criteria for Cessation of appointment :

28

1.Whose name has been removed from the roll

of persons admitted as lawyers in any

Australian jurisdiction; or

2.Whose practicing certificate has been

cancelled or suspended; or

3.Against whom a finding of professional

misconduct has been made by a competent

court or tribunal.

4.Who has been convicted of a serious

offence as defined in the Legal Profession

Act 2006, ceases to hold the appointment

and is not permitted to retain or use the

title of Senior Counsel.

5.A finding of unsatisfactory professional

conduct has been made against the

appointee by a competent court or

tribunal; or

6.The appointee has conditions imposed on

his or her practicing certificate.

Determination of Applications :

The Selection Committee must seek comments on

each applicant from the following members of

the private bar and the judiciary: (a) All

Senior Counsel and Queens Counsel Members;

(b) The President of the Court of Appeal; (c)

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the

ACT; (d) Judges of the Supreme Court of the

ACT; (e) Master of the Supreme Court of the

ACT; (f) The Chief Magistrate of the ACT

Magistrates Court; (g) The Chief Justice of

the Federal Court of Australia; (h) The Chief

Justice of the Family Court of Australia; (i)

Other senior members of any other courts or

tribunals in which the Selection Committee

considers the applicant to have practiced to

a substantial extent; and (j) The President

of the ACT Law Society.

29

The President may, consult with as many other

additional legal practitioners or members of

the judiciary or other persons as is

considered to be of assistance in

consideration of the applications. He may

also consult with any of the persons for whom

comments have already been received, for the

purposes of further discussion and

clarification in considering the

applications. The President and Assisting

Counsel shall, after taking into account all

comments received, make a final selection of

the proposed appointees. He shall then inform

the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the

ACT of his/her final selection and seek the

views of the Chief Justice on the proposed

appointment as Senior Counsel. He shall not

appoint any applicant whose appointment the

Chief Justice opposes. He then publishes the

name/s of the successful applicants for

appointment as Senior Counsel for that year

in order of intended seniority. After

publication of the list of successful

applicants, any unsuccessful applicant may

discuss his or her application with the

President.

SINGAPORE

In Singapore, under Part IV: Privileges of

Advocates and Solicitors in the Legal

Profession Act, the process for Appointment

of Senior Counsel is prescribed. Under

Section 30, the following process is laid

down:

1. A Selection Committee comprising the

Chief Justice, the Attorney-General and

the Judges of Appeal may appoint an

advocate and solicitor or a Legal

Service Officer as Senior Counsel if the

30

Selection Committee is of the opinion

that, by virtue of the person’s ability,

standing at the Bar or special knowledge

or experience in law, he is deserving of

such distinction.

2. At every meeting of the Selection

Committee, 3 members shall constitute a

quorum, and no business shall be

transacted unless a quorum is present.

3. Subject to this section, the Selection

Committee may establish its own practice

and regulate its own procedure.

4. The appointment of a Senior Counsel shall

be deemed to be revoked if the Senior

Counsel

a) Deleted.

b) being a Legal Service Officer, is

dismissed from the Singapore Legal

Service;

c) being a member of the Faculty of Law

of the National University of Singapore

or the School of Law of the Singapore

Management University, is dismissed from

the Faculty or School, as the case may

be;

d) is convicted of an offence by a court

of law in Singapore or elsewhere and

sentenced to imprisonment for a term of

not less than 12 months or to a fine of

not less than $2,000 and has not

received a free pardon;

e) becomes mentally disordered and

incapable of managing himself or his

affairs;

f) is an undischarged bankrupt; or

g) enters into a composition with his

creditors or a deed of arrangement with

his creditors.

5. The appointment of a Senior Counsel shall

be deemed to be revoked if, upon an

application under section 82A(10) or 98(1) —

31

a)the Senior Counsel is suspended from

practice or struck off the roll; or

b)a court of 3 Judges of the Supreme Court

recommends that the appointment of the

Senior Counsel be revoked.

6. No person shall be appointed as a Senior

Counsel unless he has for an aggregate period

of not less than 10 years been an advocate

and solicitor or a Legal Service Officer or

both.

7. On 21st April 1989, those persons who, on

the date immediately preceding that date, are

holding office as the Attorney-General and

the Solicitor-General shall be deemed to have

been appointed as Senior Counsel under this

section.

8. Any person who, on or after 1st June

2007, holds office as the Attorney-General, a

Deputy Attorney-General or the

Solicitor-General shall, if he is not a

Senior Counsel, be deemed to have been

appointed as Senior Counsel under this

section on that date or the date on which he

is appointed Attorney-General, Deputy

Attorney-General or Solicitor-General,

whichever is the later.

IRELAND

(Nomenclature – Senior Counsel)

The Legal Services Regulation Act, 2015’s

Part 12 (Patents of Precedence) provides

for the process of designating the title

‘Senior Counsel’.

A Patent of Precedence, if granted upon a

barrister/solicitor entitles him to use the

32

title of Senior Counsel. The Advisory

Committee on the grant of Patent of

Precedence shall consist of – (a) the Chief

Justice (as Chairman); (b) the President of

the High Court; (c) the Attorney General;

(d) Bar Council’s Chairperson; (e) Law

Society’s President; (f) a lay member.

The criteria for grant of Patent of

Precedence is as follows- (i) legal

practitioner must have displayed a degree

of competence and a degree of probity

appropriate to and consistent with the

grant to him or her of a Patent; (ii)s/he

must have professional independence; (iii)

s/he must have a proven capacity for

excellence in the practice of advocacy;

(iv) s/he must have a proven capacity for

excellence in the practice of specialist

litigation; (v) s/he must have specialist

knowledge of an area of law; (vi) s/he must

be suitable on grounds of character and

temperament.

The Advisory Committee, if it finds that,

the candidate meets the criteria, it will

recommend the shortlisted names to the

government to be granted the Patent of

Precedence.

33

15. So far as India is concerned, it

appears that the legal profession acquired

roots in the years of British rule. The first

British Court was established in Bombay in

the year 1672. In the year 1726, the Mayor

Courts were established in Madras, Bombay and

Calcutta. By the Charter of 1774, the Supreme

Court of Judicature was established at

Calcutta and, thereafter, in Bombay and

Madras. The Charter allowed only English and

Irish barristers to practice in these courts

and no Indian had the right to appear in the

Court. In 1862, High Courts were established

at Calcutta, Bombay and Madras. Vakils could

now practice before the High Courts ending

the monopoly of barristers. There was Indian

34

participation in the courts along with the

presence of English lawyers. In 1879, the

Legal Practitioners Act was enacted which

defined ‘Legal Practitioner’ to mean an

Advocate, a Vakil, an attorney of any High

Court, a pleader, a Mukhtar, a revenue-agent.

The Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 was then

passed to unify the various grades of legal

practice and to provide autonomy to the Bar.

Prior to the coming into force of the

Advocates Act, 1961, so far as the Supreme

Court of India is concerned, designation as a

senior Advocate was a matter of choice for

any Advocate, who had completed 10 years of

practice and who was otherwise willing to

abide by certain conditions, e.g., not to

directly deal with clients or file papers and

documents in the courts etc. Designations

which were exclusively dealt with by the Bar

came to be vested in the Supreme Court with

the enactment of the Supreme Court Rules of

35

the year 1966. Similar was the earlier

position in the Bombay High Court. The

change in the scenario could be attributed to

the enactment of the Advocates Act, 1961

whereunder the task of designating Senior

Advocate was, for the first time, statutorily

entrusted to the Supreme Court/High Courts.

Section 16 of the Act which deals with the

matter and has led to the present debate, is

in the following terms.

“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 interest

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

36

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 continue as a

senior advocate, the Bar Council may

grant the application and the roll

shall be altered accordingly.”

16. Rule 2 of Order IV of the Supreme

Court Rules 2013 and its sub-rules may also

be seen at this stage:

“2(a) The Chief Justice and the

Judges may, with the consent of the

advocate, designate an advocate as

senior advocate if in their opinion

by virtue of his ability, standing at

the Bar or special knowledge or

experience in law the said advocate

is deserving of such distinction.

(b) A senior advocate shall not-

(i)file a vakalatnama or act in any

Court or Tribunal in India;

(ii)appear without an

advocate-on-record in the Court or

without a junior in any other Court

or Tribunal in India;

(iii) accept instructions to draw

pleadings or affidavit, advise on

evidence or do any drafting work of

an analogous kind in any Court or

Tribunal in India or undertake

conveyancing work of any kind

whatsoever but this prohibition shall

37

not extend to settling any such

matter as aforesaid in consultation

with a junior;

(iv) accept directly from a client

any brief or instructions to appear

in any Court or Tribunal in India.

Explanation.-

In this order-

(i) ‘ acting’ means filing an

appearance or any pleadings or

applications in any Court or

Tribunal in India, or any act

(other than pleading)required

or authorized by law to be done

by a party in such Court or

Tribunal either in person or by

his recognized agent or by an

advocate or attorney on his

behalf.

(ii) ‘ tribunal’ includes any

authority or person legally

authorized to take evidence and

before whom advocates are, by

or under any law for the time

being in force, entitled to

practice.

(iii) ‘junior’ means an advocate

other than a senior advocate.

(c)Upon an advocate being designated

as a senior advocate, the Registrar

shall communicate to all the High

Courts and the Secretary to the Bar

Council of India and the Secretary of

the State Bar Council concerned the

name of the said Advocate and the

date on which he was so designated.”

38

17. So far as the practice prevailing in

the Supreme Court of India for designation of

senior advocates is concerned, from the

Affidavits filed on behalf of the Registry of

the Supreme Court it seems that the essence

of the practice in vogue is that 20 years of

combined standing as an Advocate or a

District and Sessions Judge or a Judicial

Member of any Tribunal (qualification for

eligibility for appointment in such Tribunal

should not be less than what is prescribed

for appointment as a District Judge),

entitles an Advocate to apply for being

designated as a Senior Advocate by the

Supreme Court. A relaxation to the aforesaid

requirement i.e. length of practice was

recommended in the year 1996 by an

Administrative Committee of three Hon’ble

Judges which also appears to have been acted

upon in specific cases. All applications

received are circulated to the Hon’ble Chief

39

Justice and all Hon’ble Judges. Only those

cases which have been approved by a minimum

of five Hon’ble Judges are put up before the

Full Court. If the Hon’ble Chief Justice or

any Hon’ble Judge of the Supreme Court is of

the view that a particular Advocate deserves

the distinction of being designated as a

Senior Advocate, the Hon’ble Chief Justice or

the Hon’ble Judge, as may be, can also

recommend the name of such Advocate for being

considered for designation. All such names

would also be circulated amongst the Judges

in the same manner and undergo the same

process until the short-listed names reach

the Full Court. In the Full Court, decisions

are taken on the basis of voting by secret

ballot and by the rule of majority.

18. Insofar as the High Courts of the

country are concerned, it appears that there

is no uniform criteria or yardstick. Age;

income; length of practice; requirement of

40

practice 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.

(1) HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA

The High Court of Calcutta has published a

Notification on the 29th of September, 2014,

and has crystallized the procedure in order

to designate advocates as a Senior Advocate:

(I) The advocate must not be less than 40

years of age at the time of moving an

application, and he must have an experience

of not less than 15 years at the Bar. The

experience of an advocate at the State

Judicial Services is counted towards the

41

overall experience; however, such advocate

must have practiced at the Bar for not less

than 07 years after the cessation of services

at the State Judicial Services.

(II) Any former Judge of a High Court

entitled to practice before the High Court of

Calcutta may move an application in writing

before the Chief Justice and seek the

designation of a Senior Advocate.

(III) Any Judge of the High Court may

recommend to the Chief Justice the name of an

advocate who is worthy to receive this

designation.

(IV) The Chief Justice shall constitute a

standing committee of seven Judges in order

to consider the applications moved by the

interested candidates.

(V) The standing committee shall scrutinize

the applications and recommend the candidates

who are worthy to be considered by the

Full-Court.

42

(VI) The Full-Court shall deliberate upon the

applications recommended by the standing

committee and the Full-Court shall vote upon

such applications by casting secret ballots.

(VII) Any applicant who gets the votes of

2/3rd of the Judges, or more, is conferred

the designation of a Senior Advocate. If a

particular application is rejected by the

High Court, then such advocate will not be

considered for a subsequent period of two

years.

(2). HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA

The High Court of Tripura has published a

Notification on the 17th of July, 2013, and

has crystallized the procedure in order to

designate advocates as a Senior Advocate:

(I) The advocate seeking designation shall

not be less than 45 years of age at the time

of moving an application and he must have

practiced at the Bar for not less than 15

years. The advocate must be enrolled with the

43

Bar Council of Tripura and he must be

primarily practicing before the High Court of

Tripura or the courts subordinate to the High

Court.

(II) The application for consideration in

reference to an advocate may be moved either

by the advocate himself or by a Judge of the

High Court.

(III) The advocate shall have a net annual

taxable income which is not less than three

lakh rupees, accruing from the legal

profession, in reference to the preceding

three years;

Provided that this clause will not apply to

the Law Officers of the Government.

(IV) The applications are deliberated upon by

the Full-Court and the votes will be cast by

secret ballots.

(V) An advocate is required to get 3/4th of

the votes of the Full-Court in order to be

designated as a Senior Advocate. If an

44

applicant is rejected by the High Court, then

his designation will not be considered for a

subsequent period of two years.

(3). HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND

The High Court of Jharkhand employs this

procedure in order to designate advocates as

a Senior Advocate:

(I) The advocate seeking designation, while

moving an application, must have an

experience which is not less than 15 years at

the Bar. The advocate is also required to be

an ordinary resident of Jharkhand and is

required to be practicing before the High

Court.

(II) The application for consideration in

reference to an advocate may be moved either

by the advocate himself or by a Judge of the

High Court.

(III) The Full-Court shall deliberate upon

the applications so received and may

designate an advocate as a Senior Advocate if

45

he is worthy of such designation. If an

applicant is rejected by the Full-Court, then

his designation will not be considered for a

subsequent period of two years.

(4). HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

The High Court of Uttarakhand has published a

Notification on the 04th of August, 2009, and

has crystallized the procedure in order to

designate advocates as a Senior Advocate:

(I) An advocate seeking designation must have

an experience which is not less than 20 years

at the Bar, he must be enrolled with the

State Bar Council of Uttarakhand and he must

be an ordinary resident of Nainital.

(II) The application for consideration shall

be moved by a Judge of the High Court, along

with the consent of the advocate in question.

(III) The Full-Court shall deliberate upon

the recommendations and the designation is

conferred upon the advocate with the

attainment of a simple majority of votes.

46

(IV) The Full-Court has the power to strip

off the designation conferred unto an

advocate, through a simple majority of votes,

if the High Court is of the opinion that such

advocate is not worthy of the designation any

more.

(5). HIGH COURT OF GUWAHATI

The High Court of Guwahati has published a

Notification on the 09th of September, 2011,

and has crystallized the procedure in order

to designate advocates as a Senior Advocate:

(I) The application seeking consideration

shall be moved either by the Advocate-General

for a State, two senior advocates practicing

before the High Court of Guwahati or suo motu

by the High Court.

(II) The advocate shall not be less than 35

years of age at the time of moving an

application and he must have an experience

which is not less than 10 years either at the

Bar or at the State Judicial Services. The

47

advocate is also required to have practiced

before a court under the jurisdiction of the

High Court of Guwahati for a term which is

not less than 05 years.

(III) The advocate must have a net annual

taxable income which is not less than two

lakh rupees and he must be a permanent

resident of a State falling under the

jurisdiction of the High Court of Guwahati.

The advocate is also required to be enrolled

with the State Bar Council of Assam,

Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, Mizoram,

Meghalaya, Nagaland, Tripura or Sikkim.

(IV) The Chief Justice may constitute a

committee consisting of not less than three

Judges of the High Court in order to consider

the applications. The committee so

constituted shall place its recommendations

before the Full-Court.

(V) The applications shall be deliberated

upon by the Full-Court and the designation is

48

conferred unto the advocate if he secures the

votes of 2/3rd of the Judges. If the proposal

in reference to a particular advocate is

rejected, then his designation will not be

considered for a subsequent period of two

years.

(6). HIGH COURT OF ORISSA

The High Court of Orissa has published a

Notification on the 23rd of June, 2011, and

has crystallized the procedure in order to

designate advocates as a Senior Advocate:

(I) The advocate seeking consideration shall

not be less than 35 years of age at the time

of moving an application and he must have an

experience which is not less than 10 years at

the Bar. The services rendered by the

advocate at the State Judicial Services will

also be considered.

(II) The advocate must have a net annual

taxable income which is not less than three

lakh rupees.

49

(III) The Full-Court shall consider the

applications and designation is conferred

upon advocates who secure a simple majority

of votes. The advocates rejected by the High

Court will not be considered for a subsequent

period of one year.

(7). HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH

The High Court of Chhattisgarh has published

a Notification on the 21st of March, 2014,

and has crystallized the procedure in order

to designate advocates as a Senior Advocate:

(I) The application seeking designation may

be moved either by the advocate himself or by

a Judge of the High Court. The advocate

seeking designation must not be less than 45

years of age and he must have an experience

at the Bar which is not less than 20 years.

The experience accrued through the State

Judicial Services will be considered and the

advocate must have practiced before the High

50

Court for a term which is not less than 10

years.

(II) The advocate must have a net annual

taxable income which is not less than five

lakh rupees for the preceding three years.

(III) The Chief Justice may constitute a

committee in order to consider the

applications moved by the advocates. The

recommendations of the committee are placed

before the Full-Court for consideration. The

advocate must secure votes of at least 2/3rd

of the Judges of the Full-Court in order to

be designated as a Senior Advocate. The

advocates rejected by the High Court will not

be considered for a subsequent term of two

years.

(8). HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA

The High Court of Meghalaya has the

following procedure in order to designate

advocates as a Senior Advocate:

(I) The application seeking designation may

51

be moved by a Judge of the High Court, the

Advocate-General for Meghalaya or by three

senior advocates practicing before the High

Court.

(II) The advocate shall not be less than 35

years of age and he shall have an experience

which is not less than 10 years at the Bar.

The experience accrued by the advocate at the

State Judicial Services is considered towards

the overall experience.

(III) The advocate must secure votes of at

least 2/3rd of the Judges of the Full-Court

in order to be designated as a Senior

Advocate. The advocates rejected by the High

Court will not be considered for a subsequent

term of two years.

(9). HIGH COURT AT HYDERABAD

The High Court at Hyderabad has published a

Notification on the 16th of March, 2016, and

52

has crystallized the procedure in order to

designate advocates as a Senior Advocate:

(I) The application seeking designation shall

be moved by at least three senior advocates

practicing before the High Court. The

advocate seeking designation must not be less

than 45 years of age and he must have an

experience which is not less than 15 years.

The experience accrued by the advocate as a

State Judicial Officer will be counted

towards the overall experience.

(II) The advocate must have a net annual

taxable income which is not less than ten

lakh rupees over the preceding three years.

(III) The Full-Court shall deliberate upon

the applications and an advocate securing

over 2/3rd of the votes will be designated as

a Senior Advocate. The method of voting is by

the casting of secret ballots. An advocate

rejected by the High Court shall not be

considered for a subsequent period of two

53

years.

(10). HIGH COURT OF DELHI

The High Court of Delhi has published a

Notification on the 14th of December, 2012,

and has crystallized the procedure in order

to designate advocates as a Senior Advocate:

(I) The application for designation is

considered suo motu by the High Court or

moved by five senior advocates of the High

Court, along with the consent of the advocate

concerned. The advocate must have an

experience which is not less than 10 years at

the Bar and he must be enrolled with the Bar

Council of Delhi.

(II) The applications are considered by the

Full-Court and an advocate must secure not

less than 2/3rd of the ballots cast by the

Judges. A Judge is allowed to abstain from

the voting procedure and such votes shall not

be counted towards the final number of

ballots cast.

54

(III) An advocate rejected by the High Court

will not be considered for a subsequent

period of one year.

(11). HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

The High Court of Karnataka employs this

procedure in order to designate advocates as

a Senior Advocate:

(I) The application seeking designation may

be moved by a Judge of the High Court, two

senior advocates practicing before the High

Court or by the advocate himself.

(II) The advocate must have an experience

which is not less than 15 years at the Bar

and must have a net annual taxable income

which is not less than three lakh rupees over

the preceding five years.

(III) An advocate must secure a simple

majority of votes cast at the meeting of the

Full-Court in order to secure the designation

of a Senior Advocate. The advocates rejected

by the High Court will not be considered for

55

a subsequent period of two years.

(12). HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND

HARYANA

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana has

published a Notification on the 31st of

January, 2007, and has crystallized the

procedure in order to designate advocates as

a Senior Advocate:

(I) The advocate seeking designation must

have an experience which is not less than 15

years at the Bar.

(II) The advocate must have a net annual

taxable income which is not less than 15 lakh

rupees for the preceding two years and a net

annual taxable income which is not less than

10 lakh rupees over the preceding three

years. The application for consideration must

be moved on behalf of the advocate by two

senior advocates practicing before the High

Court.

(III) The Full-Court may designate an

56

applicant as a Senior Advocate through a

simple majority. The Judges are allowed to

abstain from the voting procedure. The

advocates rejected by the High Court will not

be considered for a subsequent term of two

years.

(13). HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh has

published a Notification on the 19th of July,

2009, and has crystallized the procedure in

order to designate advocates as a Senior

Advocate:

(I) The applications for consideration will

be considered by the High Court suo motu. The

advocates will have to be enrolled with the

Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh for

consideration.

(II) The advocate must not be less than 45

years of age and must have an experience

which is not less than 15 years at the time

of consideration. The advocate must have a

57

net annual taxable income which is not less

than three lakh rupees over the preceding

three years.

(III) The Full-Court will cast secret ballots

and an advocate must secure at least 3/4th of

the votes for a designation. The advocates

rejected by the High Court will not be

considered for a subsequent term of two

years.

(14). HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh has

published a Notification on the 11th of

April, 2012, and has crystallized the

procedure in order to designate advocates as

a Senior Advocate:

(I) The applications seeking designation may

be moved by the advocate himself or may be

considered suo motu by the High Court.

(II) The advocate must have an experience

which is not less than 15 years at the Bar

and must have a net annual taxable income

58

which is not less than ten lakh rupees over

the preceding three years. The applications

will be placed before a committee of Judges

constituted by the Chief Justice and the

recommendations of this committee will be

placed before the Full-Court.

(III) The Full-Court will vote by casting

secret ballots and an advocate will have to

secure a simple majority of votes in order to

receive the designation. The advocates

rejected by the High Court will not be

considered for a subsequent period of two

years.

(15). HIGH COURT OF PATNA

The High Court of Patna has crystallized this

procedure in order to designate advocates as

a Senior Advocate:

(I) The applications seeking designation may

59

be moved by the advocate or may be considered

suo motu by the High Court.

(II) The advocate must not be less than 38

years of age and must have an experience

which is not less than 10 years at the Bar.

(III) The Full-Court will vote by casting

secret ballots and the advocate must secure a

simple majority of votes for designation.

(16). HIGH COURT OF KERALA

The High Court of Kerala has published a

Notification on the 18th of January, 2000,

and has crystallized the procedure in order

to designate advocates as a Senior Advocate:

(I) The application seeking designation may

be moved by the advocate himself, by two

senior advocates practicing before the High

Court or may be considered by the High Court

suo motu.

(II) An advocate must not be less than 45

years of age and must have an experience

which is not less than 15 years at the time

60

of consideration. The advocate must also have

a net annual taxable income which is not less

than two lakh rupees over the preceding three

years.

(III) The Full-Court will cast votes through

secret ballots and the advocate must secure

at least 2/3rd of the votes for designation.

The advocates rejected by the High Court will

not be considered for a subsequent term of

two years.

(17). HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

The High Court of Bombay has published a

Notification on the 28th of August, 2013, and

has crystallized the procedure in order to

designate advocates as a Senior Advocate:

(I) The application for consideration may be

moved on behalf of the advocate by a senior

advocate of the Bar.

(II) The advocate must have an experience

which is not less than 15 years at the Bar

and must have an net annual taxable income

61

which is not less than seven lakh rupees.

(III) The applications will be considered by

a committee of Judges constituted by the

Chief Justice and the recommendations of this

committee will be placed before the

Full-Court. The Judges of the Full-Court are

allowed to abstain from the proceedings and

the advocate must secure at least 2/3rd of

the votes for a designation.

(18). HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT

The High Court of Gujarat has published a

Notification on the 09th of August, 2012, and

has crystallized the procedure in order to

designate advocates as a Senior Advocate:

(I) The applications seeking designation may

be moved by the advocate or may be considered

suo motu by the High Court.

(II) The advocate must not be less than 40

years of age and must have an experience

which is not less than 15 years at the time

of consideration. The advocate must have a

62

net annual taxable income not less than 15

lakh rupees over the preceding three years.

(III) The Full-Court will deliberate upon the

applications and the advocate must secure at

least 2/3rd of the votes for a designation.

The voting is through the casting of secret

ballots and the Judges are allowed to abstain

from voting. The advocates rejected by the

High Court will not be considered for a

subsequent term of two years.

(19). HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN

The High Court of Rajasthan has published a

Notification on the 30th of April, 2010, and

has crystallized the procedure in order to

designate advocates as a Senior Advocate:

(I) The applications seeking designation may

be moved by the advocate or may be considered

suo motu by the High Court.

(II) The advocate must not be less than 40

years of age and must have an experience

which is not less than 20 years at the time

63

of consideration.

(III) The Full-Court will deliberate upon the

applications and the advocate must secure at

least 2/3rd of the votes for a designation.

The advocates rejected by the High Court will

not be considered for a subsequent term of

five years.

(20). HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD

The High Court of Allahabad has published a

Notification on the 10th of December, 2010,

and has crystallized the procedure in order

to designate advocates as a Senior Advocate:

(I) The applications seeking designation must

be moved with the consent of the advocate by

seven senior advocates practicing before the

High Court.

(II) The advocate so recommended must have an

experience which is not less than 20 years at

the Bar.

(III) The Full-Court will vote by casting

secret ballots and the advocate must secure a

64

simple majority for the designation. The

advocates rejected by the High Court will not

be considered for a subsequent term of two

years.

(21). HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM

The High Court of Sikkim has published a

Notification on the 05th of June, 2009, and

has crystallized the procedure in order to

designate advocates as a Senior Advocate:

(I) The applications seeking designation may

be moved by a Judge of the High Court,

Advocate-General for Sikkim or two senior

advocates practicing before the High Court.

(II) The advocate must not be less than 35

years of age and he must have an experience

which is not less than 10 years at the Bar.

The advocate is also required to have a net

annual taxable income which is not less than

two lakh rupees.

(III) The Full-Court will deliberate upon the

applications and the advocate must secure at

65

least 2/3rd of the votes for a designation.

The advocates rejected by the High Court will

not be considered for a subsequent term of

two years.

(22). HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

The High Court of Madras has crystallized

this procedure in order to designate

advocates as a Senior Advocate:

(I) The applicant must have an experience

which is not less than 15 years at the Bar.

The services rendered by the applicant as a

Judicial Officer is included while

calculating the years of service.

(II) The applicant must have an annual gross

income, accruing from the profession of law,

which is not less than seven lakh rupees for

the preceding three years, and the applicant

must be an income-tax assessee for the

preceding ten years from the date of

66

consideration;

Provided that this condition will not apply

to Government counsel who are serving as

Law-Officers at the relevant time.

(III) The applicant must furnish at least 15

judgments, over the preceding three years,

wherein he has contributed towards the growth

of law.

(IV) The primary criteria for designation is

the caliber, merit, ability and academic

distinction of the applicant; including his

character, conduct and behavior towards the

court and brother/sister members of the Bar.

(V) The applicant must be primarily

practicing before the High Court of Madras,

or the courts or tribunals subordinate to the

High Court.

The High Court in its report submitted

through the Registrar General states that

additionally it is following the following

procedure for conferring/removing a

67

designation upon an Advocate:

(I) A Selection Committee is put in place and

it consists of ten Hon’ble Judges of the High

Court.

(II) The Advocates, who fulfill the norms as

mentioned herein, shall move an application

in the prescribed format before the Selection

Committee.

(III) The Selection Committee verifies the

credentials of applicants and recommends the

names for designation before the Chief

Justice of the High Court. The opinion of the

Chief Justice will prevail if there is no

consensus among the Selection Committee in

this regard.

(IV) The credentials of the recommended

applicants will be placed before the

Full-Court and the opinion of the majority

will prevail.

(V) The Full-Court, through a simple

majority, is also empowered to strip an

68

Advocate off this designation if the High

Court is of the opinion that such advocate is

not worthy to hold the distinction any more.

19. We may now proceed to take up the

cases in such seriatim as would be required.

I.A. NO.53321 OF 2017 IN WRIT PETITION

(CIVIL) NO.454 OF 2015 [FILED BY GUJARAT HIGH

COURT ADVOCATE’S ASSOCIATION]

&

TRANSFERRED CASE NO.1 OF 2017 [I.E. WRIT

PETITION (CIVIL) NO.6331 OF 2016 FILED BY THE

NATIONAL LAWYERS CAMPAIGN FOR JUDICIAL

TRANSPARENCY AND REFORMS]

20. We have heard Shri Ashim Anand,

learned counsel appearing for the applicant

(Gujarat High Court Advocate’s Association),

Shri Mathews J. Nedumpara, learned counsel

for the petitioner in Transferred Case No.1

of 2017, Shri R.S. Suri, learned Senior

Counsel, who is also the President, Supreme

Court Bar Association, Shri Annam D.N. Rao,

learned counsel for the Supreme Court of

India through Secretary General and the

learned counsels for the interveners.

69

21. The challenge to Section 16 of the

Act and Order IV rule 2 of the Supreme Court

Rules, 2013 is primarily founded on the basis

that the classification made resulting in two

classes of Advocates i.e. ‘Senior Advocates’

and ‘Advocates’ is not based on any

reasonable and acceptable basis; even if

there be one, the same has no connection with

the object sought to be achieved by such

classification. It is argued that not only

the practice of designation of Senior

Advocates is a relic of the feudal past but

it negates the concept of equality inasmuch

as the professional qualifications of a

“Senior Advocate” and an “Advocate” are the

same and so also the competence and ability

in most cases; yet, a Senior Advocate, by

virtue of his designation, stands out as a

class apart not only because of the special

dress code prescribed but also because of the

70

right of pre-audience conferred by Section 23

of the Act. A Senior Advocate steals an

undeserving head start in the profession. It

is further contended that the designation of

Senior Advocate being a conferment made by

the Judges, the same gives the impression of

recognition of an Advocate by the Judges

which professionally has an adverse impact on

others who have not been so designated,

besides giving an unfair advantage to the

person so designated. It is argued that

because designation is conferred by the

Judges there is a public perception that it

is only the Senior Advocates who have been

recognized by the Judges to be persons of

competence, ability and merit. It is the

perception of the petitioner – Association

that undue indulgence is shown to Senior

Advocates by the Courts. The litigant, in

the circumstances, is left with no choice but

to engage a Senior Advocate who in turn

71

charges high fees for his/her services to the

prejudice of the litigants. It is further

contended that the entire exercise of

designation is a subjective process

disclosing no basis for the particular

conclusion reached. There being nothing to

differentiate a person designated and a

person who has not been so designated, the

equality clause enshrined in Article 14 of

the Constitution of India is violated. It is

also contended that even if an objective

criteria is laid down and is followed, the

distinction between the two classes of

Advocates has no nexus with the object sought

to be achieved i.e. advancement of the legal

system which in any case is also and, in

fact, effectively serviced by Advocates who

are not designated as Senior Advocates. The

practice of designation of Senior Advocates

has also been challenged on the ground that

the same violates Article 18 of the

72

Constitution of India which imposes an

embargo on conferment of title by the State.

Though state honours like ‘Bharat Ratna’,

Padma Vibhushan’ etc. are still being

conferred, the said honours are not prefixed

or suffixed to the names of the recipients

unlike that of a ‘Senior Advocate’. The

conferment of designation being an instance

of exercise of the administrative power of

the Supreme Court and the High Courts the

same is contrary to the mandate of Article 18

of the Constitution of India, it is argued.

22. We have considered the matter.

23. The exercise of the power vested in

the Supreme Court and the High Courts to

designate an Advocate as a Senior Advocate is

circumscribed by the requirement of due

satisfaction that the concerned advocate

fulfills the three conditions stipulated

under Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961,

i.e., (1) ability; (2) standing at the bar;

73

and/or (3) special knowledge or experience in

law that the person seeking designation has

acquired. It is not an uncontrolled,

unguided, uncanalised power though in a given

case its exercise may partake such a

character. However, the possibility of

misuse cannot be a ground for holding a

provision of the Statute to be

constitutionally fragile. The consequences

spelt out by the intervener, namely, (1)

indulgence perceived to be shown by the

Courts to Senior Advocates; (2) the effect of

designation on the litigant public on account

of high fees charged; (3) its baneful effect

on the junior members of the bar; and (4) the

element of anti-competitiveness, etc. are

untoward consequences occasioned by human

failures. Possible consequences arising from

a wrong/improper exercise of power cannot be

a ground to invalidate the provisions of

Section 16 of the Act. Recognition of

74

qualities of merit and ability demonstrated

by in-depth knowledge of intricate questions

of law; fairness in court proceedings

consistent with the duties of a counsel as an

officer of the Court and contributions in

assisting the Court to charter the right

course of action in any given case, all of

which would go to determine the standing of

the Advocate at the bar is the object behind

the classification. Such an object would

enhance the value of the legal system that

Advocates represent. So long as the basis of

the classification is founded on reasonable

parameters which can be introduced by way of

uniform guidelines/norms to be laid down by

this Court, we do not see how the power of

designation conferred by Section 16 of the

Act can be said to be constitutionally

impermissible.

24. Similar is the position with regard

to the challenge founded on the alleged

75

violation of Article 18 of the Constitution

of India. The designation ‘Senior Advocate’

is hardly a title. It is a distinction; a

recognition. Use of the said designation

(i.e. Senior Advocate), per se, would not be

legally impermissible inasmuch as in other

vocations also we find use of similar

expressions as in the case of a doctor

referred to as a ‘Consultant’ which has its

own implications in the medical world. There

are doctors who are referred to as ‘Senior

Consultants’ or as a ‘Senior Surgeon’. Such

expressions are instances of recognition of

the talent and special qualities of a person

which has been proved and tested over a

period of time. In fact, even in

bureaucratic circles such suffixes and

prefixes are also not uncommon. We,

therefore, take the view that the designation

of ‘Advocates’ as ‘Senior Advocates’ as

provided for in Section 16 of the Act would

76

pass the test of constitutionality and the

endeavour should be to lay down

norms/guidelines/parameters to make the

exercise conform to the three requirements of

the Statute already enumerated herein above,

namely, (1) ability of the advocate

concerned; (2) his/her standing at the bar;

and (3) his/her special knowledge or

experience in law.

25. I.A. NO.53321 of 2017 in Writ

Petition (Civil) No.454 of 2015 filed by the

Gujarat High Court Advocates’ Association is

accordingly disposed of in the above terms.

So is the Transferred Case No.1 of 2017 [i.e.

Writ Petition (Civil) No.6331 of 2016 filed

by the National Lawyers Campaign for Judicial

Transparency and Reforms in the Delhi High

Court].

77

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NOS.33 AND 819 OF 2016

[FILED BY THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA BAR

ASSOCIATION, SHILLONG]

26. As already indicated, the grievance

of the petitioner in these writ petitions is

with regard to the amendment of the

guidelines framed by the High Court of

Meghalaya governing the issue of designation

of Senior Advocates. The grievance

specifically is directed against the

amendment dated 31

st

March, 2015 by which the

requirement of 05 years’ practice in any

Court within the jurisdiction the High Court

of Meghalaya has been done away with and an

Advocate practicing in any court of the

country has been made eligible.

27. There is a further amendment made on

13

th

January, 2016 by which any Senior

Advocate of any High Court in the country can

sponsor any advocate in any court in India to

be designated as a Senior Advocate by the

High Court of Meghalaya. Even at first

78

blush, the guidelines have been couched, by

the amendments thereto, in too wide terms for

acceptance.

28. The power of designating any person

as a Senior Advocate is always vested in the

Full Court either of the Supreme Court or of

any High Court. If an extraordinary

situation arises requiring the Full Court of

a High Court to depart from the usual

practice of designating an advocate who has

practiced in that High Court or in a court

subordinate to that High Court, it may always

be open to the Full Court to so act unless

the norms expressly prohibit such a course of

action. If the power is always there in the

Full Court, we do not see why an express

conferment of the same by the

Rules/Guidelines is necessary. It is

instances like these that bring the system of

designation of Senior Advocates into

disrepute. Beyond the above, we do not

79

consider it necessary to say anything further

as Shri P.S. Patwalia, learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the High Court of Meghalaya has

submitted, on instructions received, that the

High Court would be willing to reconsider the

changes brought in by the amendments and

remedy the situation by taking appropriate

measures. We leave it open for the High

Court of Meghalaya to act accordingly and

close the writ petitions (Nos. 33 and 819 of

2016) in terms of the aforesaid liberty.

29. Shri K.K. Venugopal, learned

Attorney General for India, Shri R.S. Suri,

learned Senior Counsel and President, SCBA,

Shri C.U. Singh, learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the Bar Association of India,

Shri Annam D.N. Rao, learned counsel for the

Supreme Court of India through the Secretary

General and Shri V.K. Biju, the intervener

have all urged that existing practice of

80

designation of Senior Advocates should

continue though there is room to add to the

existing guidelines/parameters governing the

exercise. The arguments advanced by Shri

K.K. Venugopal, the learned Attorney General

for India and Shri R.S. Suri, learned Senior

Counsel would seem to suggest that in the

process of designation some amount of say of

the Bar by including participation of the

representatives of the Bar should be

provided. The representatives of the Bar can

provide valuable inputs to the Hon’ble Judges

who may not be, at all times, familiar with

the credentials of a person seeking

designation as a Senior Advocate. It is

urged that this is particularly true in the

case of the Supreme Court of India where the

Hon’ble Judges hold office for short tenures

and may not have had the opportunity to

experience the conduct of cases by a

particular advocate seeking designation.

81

30. Ms. Indira Jaising, who has

spearheaded the entire exercise before the

Court, at no stage, pressed for declaration

of Section 16 of the Act or the provisions of

the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 as

unconstitutional. Her endeavour,

particularly in the rejoinder arguments, has

been to make the exercise of designation more

objective, fair and transparent so as to give

full effect to consideration of merit and

ability, standing at the bar and specialized

knowledge or exposure in any field of law.

31. Both Section 16(2) of the Act and

Order IV rule 2 of the Supreme Court Rules,

2013 are significant in use of the expression

“is of opinion” and “in their opinion”

respectively which controls the power of the

Full Court to designate an Advocate as a

Senior Advocate. It is a subjective exercise

that is to be performed by the Full Court

inasmuch as a person affected by the refusal

82

of such designation is not heard; nor are

reasons recorded either for conferring the

designation or refusing the same. But the

opinion, though subjective, has to be founded

on objective materials. There has to be a

full and effective consideration of the

criteria prescribed, namely, ability;

standing at the Bar, special knowledge or

experience in law in the light of materials

which necessarily has to be ascertainable and

verifiable facts. In this regard we would

like to reiterate the view expressed by this

Court in its report in Tata Chemicals

Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs

(Preventive)

4

which may provide a valuable

insight in the matter:

“14. In our opinion, the expression

“deems it necessary” obviously means

that the proper officer must have

good reason to subject imported

goods to a chemical or other tests.

And, on the facts of the present

case, it is clear that where the

importer has furnished all the

4 (2015) 11 SCC 628

83

necessary documents to support the

fact that the ash content in the

coking coal imported is less than

12%, the proper officer must, when

questioned, state that, at the very

least, the documents produced do not

inspire confidence for some good

prima facie reason. In the present

case, as has been noted above, the

Revenue has never stated that

CASCO’s certificate of quality ought

to be rejected or is defective in

any manner. This being the case, it

is clear that the entire chemical

analysis of the imported goods done

by the Department was ultra vires

Section 18(1)(b) of the Customs Act.

15. Statutes often use expressions

such as “deems it necessary”,

“reason to believe”, etc. Suffice it

to say that these expressions have

been held not to mean the subjective

satisfaction of the officer

concerned. Such power given to the

officer concerned is not an

arbitrary power and has to be

exercised in accordance with the

restraints imposed by law. That this

is a well-settled position of law is

clear from the following judgments.

[See Rohtas Industries Ltd. v. S.D.

Agarwal, SCC at p. 341, para 11 :

SCR at p. 129.] To similar effect is

the judgment in Sheo Nath Singh v.

CIT, SCR at p. 182. In that case it

was held as under: (SCC p. 239, para

10)

‘10. … There can be no

manner of doubt that the

words ‘reason to believe’

suggest that the belief

84

must be that of an honest

and reasonable person based

upon reasonable grounds and

that the Income Tax Officer

may act on direct or

circumstantial evidence but

not on mere suspicion,

gossip or rumour. The

Income Tax Officer would be

acting without jurisdiction

if the reason for his

belief that the conditions

are satisfied does not

exist or is not material or

relevant to the belief

required by the section.

The Court can always

examine this aspect though

the declaration or

sufficiency of the reasons

for the belief cannot be

investigated by the

Court.’”

32. What is merit? Is it the academic

qualification or brilliance or is it

something more? The matter has been

considered earlier by this Court in K.K.

Parmar vs. High Court of Gujarat

5

. Placing

reliance on an earlier view in Guman Singh

vs. State of Rajasthan

6

it has been held

that:

5 (2006) 5 SCC 789

6 (1971) 2 SCC 452

85

“27. Merit of a candidate is not his

academic qualification. It is sum

total of various qualities. It

reflects the attributes of an

employee. It may be his academic

qualification. He might have

achieved certain distinction in the

university. It may involve the

character, integrity and devotion to

duty of the employee. The manner in

which he discharges his final duties

would also be a relevant factor.

(See Guman Singh v. State of

Rajasthan.)

28. For the purpose of judging the

merit, thus, past performance was a

relevant factor. There was no reason

as to why the same had been kept out

of consideration by the Selection

Committee. If a selection is based

on the merit and suitability,

seniority may have to be given due

weightage but it would only be one

of the several factors affecting

assessment of merit as comparative

experience in service should be.”

33. 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 objective parameters, we are of

the view that the same must be more

86

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

87

experience gained. 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 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

88

process of scrutiny leaving no scope for any

doubt or dissatisfaction in the matter.

34. A word with regard to minimum age

and income as conditions of eligibility

would be appropriate at this stage. From

the narration contained hereinabove with

regard to the norms and guidelines

prevailing in different High Courts, it is

evident that varying periods of practice

and different slabs of income have been,

inter alia, prescribed as minimum

conditions of eligibility for consideration

for designation as a Senior Advocate. If

merit and ability is to be the determining

factor, in addition to standing in the Bar

and expertise in any specialized field of

law, we do not see why we should insist on

any minimum income as a condition of

eligibility. The income generated by a

lawyer would depend on the field of his

practice and it is possible that a lawyer

89

doing pro bono work or who specializes in a

particular field may generate a lower

return of income than his counterpart who

may be working in another field of law.

Insistence on any particular income,

therefore, may be a self-defeating

exercise. Insofar as age is concerned, we

are inclined to take the view that instead

of having a minimum age with a provision of

relaxation in an appropriate case it would

be better to go by the norm of 10 years

practice at the Bar which is also what is

prescribed by Article 217 of the

Constitution as a condition of eligibility

for being considered for appointment as a

Judge of the High Court.

35. It is in the above backdrop that we

proceed to venture into the exercise and lay

down the following norms/guidelines which

90

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.

I. All matters relating to

designation of Senior Advocates

in the Supreme Court of India

and in all the High Courts of

the country shall be dealt with

by a Permanent Committee to be

known as “Committee for

Designation of Senior

Advocates”;

II. The Permanent Committee will be

headed by the Hon’ble the Chief

Justice of India and consist of

two senior-most Judges of the

Supreme Court of India (or High

Court(s), as may be); the

91

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;

III. 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;

IV. All applications including

written proposals by the Hon’ble

92

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

concerned Advocate(s) 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;

V. The Secretariat will publish the

proposal of designation of a

93

particular Advocate in the

official website of the

concerned Court inviting the

suggestions/views of other

stakeholders in the proposed

designation;

VI. After the data-base 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;

VII. The Permanent Committee will

examine each case in the light

of the data provided by the

Secretariat of the Permanent

94

Committee; interview the

concerned Advocate; and make its

overall assessment on the basis

of a point-based format

indicated below:

S.NO. Matter Points

1. Number of years of

practice of the Applicant

Advocate from the date of

enrolment.

[10 points for 10-20 years

of practice; 20 points for

practice beyond 20 years]

20 points

2. Judgments (Reported and

unreported) which indicate

the legal formulations

advanced by the concerned

Advocate in the course of

the proceedings of the

case; pro bono work done

by the concerned Advocate;

domain Expertise of the

Applicant Advocate in

various branches of law,

such as Constitutional

law, Inter-State Water

Disputes, Criminal law,

Arbitration law, Corporate

law, Family law, Human

Rights, Public Interest

Litigation, International

law, law relating to

40 points

95

women, etc.

3. Publications by the

Applicant Advocate

15 points

4. Test of Personality &

Suitability on the basis

of interview/interaction

25 points

VIII. All the names that are listed

before the Permanent

Committee/cleared by the

Permanent Committee will go to

the Full Court.

IX. 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.

X. All cases that have not been

favourably considered by the

96

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;

XI. 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

concerned person and recall the

same;

36. 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

97

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.

37. With the aforesaid observations and

directions and the guidelines framed we

dispose of the Writ Petition (Civil) No.454

of 2015.

.....................J.

(RANJAN GOGOI)

.....................J.

(ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN)

.....................J.

(NAVIN SINHA)

NEW DELHI

OCTOBER 12, 2017

98

ITEM NO.1501 COURT NO.2 SECTION PIL-W/X/XVI-A

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(S). 454/2015

INDIRA JAISING PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

THROUGH SECRETARY GENERAL & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

W.P.(C) NO. 33/2016 (X)

W.P.(C) NO. 819/2016 (X)

T.C.(C) NO. 1/2017 (XVI -A)

Date : 12-10-2017 These matters were called on for pronouncement of

judgment today.

For parties: Ms. Indira Jaising – in- person

Ms. Anindita Pujari, Adv.

Ms. Radhika S., Adv.

Ms. Ranjita Bhardwaj, Adv.

Ms. Ajita, Adv.

Ms. Pinky Anand, ASG

Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, Adv.

Mr. Sudhir Walia, Adv.

Mr. Ajay Sharma, Adv.

Mr. Rajat Singh, Adv.

Ms. Kirti Dua, Adv.

Ms. Snidha Mehra, Adv.

Mr. Hemant Arya, Adv.

Mr. Sumit, Adv.

Ms Saudamini Sharma, Adv.

Mr. B.K. Prasad, AOR

Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR

Mr. P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Ashok Bhan, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Sanjai Kumar Pathak, Adv.

Mr. V.K. Biju, AOR

Ms. Ria Sachthey, Adv.

Mr. Himanshu S. Yadav, Adv.

Mr. Abhay Kumar, Adv.

99

SCBA Mr. Gaurav Bhatia, AOR

Mr. Vineet Kr. Singh, Adv.

Mr. T. R. B. Sivakumar, AOR

Ms. Anindita Pujari, AOR

Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, AOR

Mr. Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, AOR

Mr. Anandh Kannan N., AOR

Mr. Annam D. N. Rao, AOR

Mr. Gaurav Bhatia, AOR

Mr. Yakesh Anand, Adv.

Mr. Merusagar Samantaray, AOR

Ms. Viddusshi, Adv.

Ms. Lhingneivah, Adv.

Ms. Nandini Gore, AOR

Mr.Purvish Jitendra Malkan, AOR

Mr. Sibo Sankar Mishra, AOR

Mr. Ashok Mathur, AOR

Ms. Nidhi Agrawal, Adv.

Mr. Sanjai Kumar Pathak, AOR

Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR

Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Harish N. Salve, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Vikash Singh, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Pravesh Thakur, Adv.

Mr. Ankur Sudan, Adv.

Mr. Rajesh Singh Chauhan, AOR

Mr. Surender Singh Hooda, AOR

Mr. Vishal Prasad, AOR

100

Mr. Kunal Chatterji, Adv.

Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Adv.

Dr. B.P. Todi, Adv.Gen., Meghalaya

Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, Adv.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi pronounced

the judgment of the Bench comprising His

Lordship, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rohinton Fali

Nariman and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha.

The writ petitions and the transferred case

are disposed of in terms of the signed

reportable judgment.

[VINOD LAKHINA] [ASHA SONI]

AR-cum-PS BRANCH OFFICER

[SIGNED REPORTABLE JUDGMENT IS PLACED ON THE FILE]