JITENDER @ KALLA versus STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR.

Citation: [2025] 5 S.C.R. 1933 · Decided: 13-05-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY S. OKA · Disposal: Reference answered

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1933 : 2025 INSC 667
Jitender @ Kalla  
v. 
State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Anr.
(Criminal Appeal No. 865 of 2025)
13 May 2025
[Abhay S. Oka,* Ujjal Bhuyan and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
(a) Whether the 100-point assessment laid down in Indira Jaising v. 
Supreme Court of India (2017) 9 SCC 766 and modified in Indira 
Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (2023) 8 SCC 1 for the 
designation of Senior Advocates require reconsideration in light 
of the experience gained and concerns expressed.
(b) Whether the inclusion of members of the Bar in the Permanent 
Committee for designation is legally permissible under Section 
16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961, which confers the power of 
designation exclusively on the Supreme Court and High Courts.
(c) Whether advocates practising in trial courts, district courts, 
and specialized tribunals—who may not have reported judgments 
but possess ability, standing, and experience—should also be 
considered for designation, so that designation is not monopolised 
by advocates practicing in High Courts and the Supreme Court.
(d) Whether the practice of inviting applications from advocates 
for designation is warranted under the scheme of Section 16(2), 
or whether designation should only be by conferment by the Court 
with the advocate’s consent.
Headnotes†
Advocates Act, 1961 – Designation of Senior Advocates – 
100-point based assessment as provided in the Indira Jaising 
(2017) and Indira Jaising (2023) – Whether the scheme has 
achieved its desired objectives:
Held: The directions contained in paragraph 73.7 of Indira Jaising v. 
Supreme Court of India (2017) 9 SCC 766 as amended by Indira 
Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (2023) 8 SCC 1, shall not be 
implemented – The system of a 100-point-based assessment is not 
* Author
1934
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
workable and has not achieved the desired objectives, as it tends 
to be highly subjective and is not rationally or objectively possible 
to assess an advocate’s calibre and standing. [Paras 60, 75]
Advocates Act, 1961 – Interview/Interaction and participation 
of members of the Bar – Whether fair and legally permissible:
Held: Subjecting an advocate with standing at the Bar to an 
interview violates the dignity of the profession – The two members 
of the Bar who are a part of the permanent committee will have to 
interact with the applicants – The applicants will be their colleagues 
by profession – The two members of the Bar are expected to be 
of very high standing nevertheless, all the applicants have access 
to them – The participation of two senior members of the Bar in 
the actual decision-making process of the permanent committee 
cannot be supported by law, as Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act 
confers this prerogative on the Supreme Court and High Courts. 
[Paras 64, 70]
Advocates Act, 1961 – Inclusivity and Diversity – Role of 
advocates practicing in Trial and District Courts – Whether 
they should be considered for designation:
Held: Designation of Senior Advocates cannot be a monopoly of 
advocates practicing in higher constitutional courts like the Supreme 
Court and High Courts – Advocates practicing in trial and district 
courts or specialized tribunals can possess the qualifications for 
designation, and their role is not inferior to the role played by 
advocates practicing in High Courts and the Supreme Court – All 
High Courts are directed to frame new rules within a period of four 
months, which must ensure inclusivity by evolving a mechanism 
to consider advocates practicing in the Trial and District Judiciary. 
[Paras 78, 79, 84]
Advocates Act, 1961 – Procedure for designation – Applications 
and recommendations – Whether applications are warranted 
or individual judges can recommend candidates:
Held: The practice of advocates making formal applications for 
designation can be continued, as it has practical advantages and 
is treated as their consent for being considered – However, the 
Full Court can consider and confer designation on a deserving 
advocate even in the absence of an application after obtaining 
his/her consent – Individual judges of the Supreme Court or High 
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 
1935
Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Anr.
Courts cannot recommend candidates for designation, as the 
decision is a collective one for the Full Court. [Para 77]
Case Law Cited
Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India [2017] 10 SCR 478 : 
(2017)

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.