The Supreme Court on Thursday raised concerns over deficiencies in the current system of designating lawyers as Senior Advocates.
A bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan referred the issue to Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, suggesting that a larger bench may need to reexamine the process.
“Our intent is not to question the binding precedents [in the Indira Jaising case], but to highlight issues that the Chief Justice may consider addressing through a larger bench,” the Court stated.
One of the key issues flagged was whether a lawyer’s designation as Senior Advocate should be treated as an entitlement.
The bench clarified that it is not a right but a privilege granted at the discretion of the Supreme Court or High Courts, with the lawyer’s consent. The judges also questioned the effectiveness of the interview process, which accounts for 25 out of 100 points in the evaluation criteria.
“Can a few minutes of interaction adequately assess a lawyer’s personality and suitability?” the bench asked, emphasizing that the current framework does not provide any alternative method of making an overall assessment.
Court’s Highlights
The Court further stressed that integrity and fairness are fundamental attributes for anyone seeking Senior Advocate status. It noted that an advocate lacking these qualities should not be considered for the designation.
“An advocate without integrity or fairness has no standing at the bar,” the Court observed, questioning how cases involving lawyers facing disciplinary complaints should be handled.
A major flaw in the system, according to the judges, is the lack of a mechanism to deduct points for ethical concerns. “Even if members of the Permanent Committee know that a candidate lacks integrity or faces misconduct allegations, the scoring system does not allow for any penalty. If such a candidate performs well in court or impresses in an interview, they may still receive high marks, despite ethical failings,” the bench pointed out.
Another challenge raised was the burden placed on senior judges to review large volumes of materials submitted by applicants. “Lawyers submit multiple judgments they have argued, as well as books and articles they have authored. Should the Chief Justice and senior judges be expected to dedicate hours reviewing these materials for every applicant? This is a question that requires serious thought,” the Court remarked.
Concluding its observations, the bench emphasized the need for reassessment. “When an evaluation system is flawed, can it serve as a reliable basis for designating Senior Advocates?” the judges asked.
The Court also addressed a separate issue regarding Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra, who is facing scrutiny over alleged misrepresentations in multiple cases. The matter has now been referred to the Chief Justice for a final decision. “The designation of Rishi Malhotra will be left to the Hon’ble CJI,” Justice Oka stated.
Earlier, the Court had sought Malhotra’s response after an Advocate-on-Record (AoR) disclosed that an appeal drafted under his direction had omitted key facts. This case led the Supreme Court to broaden its concerns about the overall designation process.
Additionally, the Court clarified the obligations of Advocates-on-Record under the Supreme Court Rules of 2013, emphasizing that they bear full responsibility for the accuracy of filings. “An AoR holds a unique position under the Rules and must exercise diligence.
They can’t shift blame to clients or instructing lawyers when incorrect information is presented,” the Court ruled.
Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International
